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

[emilynghiem]

I'm sure you didn't complain about government being in the "marriage business" before gays were allowed to marry.

Truth is, religion is the thing that isn't necessary in the business of marriage. Sure if you are Catholic you want a Catholic priest to marry you but a church or religion isn't even necessary.

The important part about marriage equality is the legal benefits that come with being marriage. That means LAW and GOVERNMENT get involved. Especially when it comes to who gets what in a divorce. We as a society decide that. Not a religion. Otherwise Muslim American women would get treated like shit when they got divorced. So Emily needs religion to back off, not government.

Dear sealybobo:
1. by putting SOCIAL BENEFITS through govt, sealybobo,
do you realize you are already violating "religious bounds"
by Constitutionalists, Libertarians, secularists and others who
DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT.

No you don't. You assume your values/beliefs in relying on govt
instead of charities for "social charity" SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON EVERYONE.

How are you different from someone who would take their
CHRISTIAN charity programs and impose that on everyone through govt?

You do not even see your own bias.

sealybobo: removing religion and BELIEFS from govt goes BOTH WAYS.
That means people who DON'T BELIEVE IN CHARITY THROUGH GOVT
also have the right to REMOVE that and keep it through free choice of charity,
NOT REGULATE SOCIAL CHARITIES AND WELFARE THROUGH GOVT.

Do you understand that this is a FORM of regulating
religious charity through govt?

So the SECULAR/NEUTRAL way I suggest to keep SOCIAL VALUES
AND BELIEFS OUT OF GOVT would be to run these programs
through PARTY so the taxes can still be managed like a Govt program,
BUT GIVE TAXPAYERS A CHOICE OF WHICH SYSTEM MEETS
THEIR STANDARDS AND BELIEFS.

Otherwise sealybobo imposing social benefits when people
DON'T agree on endorsing and recognizing various types of marriage
is CROSSING THE LINE AND IMPOSING BELIEFS THROUGH GOVT.

sealybobo I see you are objective enough to see that
some religion is creeping into govt.

Are you objective enough to see that BELIEFS such
as "same sex benefits" could also be separated out from govt
so this is not injecting conflicting beliefs?

Can you see that also, or not?

I can see it, and I am all for supporting same sex benefits
and marriage, but I'd recommend setting up Singlepayer
and recognizing same sex couples through compatible Party for
members who BELIEVE in that instead of imposing it through
the general public system since NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES THE SAME.

Currently on our tax forms, we can choose money to go to the
parties for Presidential campaigns. So why not have a choice
to manage our marriage and other social benefits by party?
And then we CAN separate who believes or doesn't believe
in funding which things, instead of disagreeing on a federal scale.

if we separate it by party, everyone can get the social programs
they believe in funding and not be forced to fund otherwise.
Advocates of:
Prochoice can fund prochoice.
Prolife can fund prolife.
Singlepayer can fund singlepayer.
Free market can fund free market.
Traditional marriage can endorse traditional marriage and manage those benefits.
Same sex marriage can endorse same sex marriage and manage those benefits.

And NOBODY has to feel forced to endorse any policy they don't believe in.
I'd separate it by party to respect people's beliefs that aren't neutral
where these cause social programs to conflict with govt neutrality and respecting all beliefs without
imposing or offending any.

Dear Emily, Did you read the rules for this debate on genetics vs. choice

Dear Progressivepatriot. Did you understand a word Emily said?

Dear Sealybobo...Not much. It's all rather bizarre. Generally, she has this idea that everyone must be and can be accommodated which just does not make any sense. I have no interest in accommodating bigots and theocrats. I've all through this with her before so I'm not going to reinvent that wheel here, especially since it's off topic. I would however like to know what this" charity through government" is.

Hi TheProgressivePatriot and sealybobo
1. If I may cite previous msgs making a distinction between people's internal BELIEFS from external BEHAVIOR, there is a difference between someone having bigoted or discriminatory beliefs internally, and how they act on these where it affects other people.

2. It seems legally there is agreement that nobody can just discriminate against serving customers based on race, religion etc. but the issues have come up about BEHAVIOR and to what degree people can choose to reject BEHAVIOR.

3. Can we agree to apply this same standard to people we consider Bigoted or Biased?

As long as it doesn't affect public policy and precluding people from exercising rights and freedoms they normally would, then just having that belief is not something we can expect to use GOVT to police.
Otherwise, what is our defense when it comes to OUR turn to face someone who wants to 'exclude' all people with liberal views, with pro LGBT values, with Christian or Atheist views FROM INCLUSION in the democratic process and representation?

If we start judging people as bigots who should not be included, what is there to stop liberals from being included or feminists from being included.

I trust the democratic process to check people from imposing views that other people are equally going to object to. There is nothing wrong with including people in the process, especially if the point is to identify points of agreement to form a consensus. Doesn't the process of reaching consensus check against any extreme views from imposing on others?

Why such fear of including people in this process?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Truth is, religion is the thing that isn't necessary in the business of marriage. Sure if you are Catholic you want a Catholic priest to marry you but a church or religion isn't even necessary.

The important part about marriage equality is the legal benefits that come with being marriage. That means LAW and GOVERNMENT get involved. Especially when it comes to who gets what in a divorce. We as a society decide that. Not a religion. Otherwise Muslim American women would get treated like shit when they got divorced. So Emily needs religion to back off, not government.

Dear sealybobo:
1. by putting SOCIAL BENEFITS through govt, sealybobo,
do you realize you are already violating "religious bounds"
by Constitutionalists, Libertarians, secularists and others who
DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT.

No you don't. You assume your values/beliefs in relying on govt
instead of charities for "social charity" SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON EVERYONE.

How are you different from someone who would take their
CHRISTIAN charity programs and impose that on everyone through govt?

You do not even see your own bias.

sealybobo: removing religion and BELIEFS from govt goes BOTH WAYS.
That means people who DON'T BELIEVE IN CHARITY THROUGH GOVT
also have the right to REMOVE that and keep it through free choice of charity,
NOT REGULATE SOCIAL CHARITIES AND WELFARE THROUGH GOVT.

Do you understand that this is a FORM of regulating
religious charity through govt?

So the SECULAR/NEUTRAL way I suggest to keep SOCIAL VALUES
AND BELIEFS OUT OF GOVT would be to run these programs
through PARTY so the taxes can still be managed like a Govt program,
BUT GIVE TAXPAYERS A CHOICE OF WHICH SYSTEM MEETS
THEIR STANDARDS AND BELIEFS.

Otherwise sealybobo imposing social benefits when people
DON'T agree on endorsing and recognizing various types of marriage
is CROSSING THE LINE AND IMPOSING BELIEFS THROUGH GOVT.

sealybobo I see you are objective enough to see that
some religion is creeping into govt.

Are you objective enough to see that BELIEFS such
as "same sex benefits" could also be separated out from govt
so this is not injecting conflicting beliefs?

Can you see that also, or not?

I can see it, and I am all for supporting same sex benefits
and marriage, but I'd recommend setting up Singlepayer
and recognizing same sex couples through compatible Party for
members who BELIEVE in that instead of imposing it through
the general public system since NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES THE SAME.

Currently on our tax forms, we can choose money to go to the
parties for Presidential campaigns. So why not have a choice
to manage our marriage and other social benefits by party?
And then we CAN separate who believes or doesn't believe
in funding which things, instead of disagreeing on a federal scale.

if we separate it by party, everyone can get the social programs
they believe in funding and not be forced to fund otherwise.
Advocates of:
Prochoice can fund prochoice.
Prolife can fund prolife.
Singlepayer can fund singlepayer.
Free market can fund free market.
Traditional marriage can endorse traditional marriage and manage those benefits.
Same sex marriage can endorse same sex marriage and manage those benefits.

And NOBODY has to feel forced to endorse any policy they don't believe in.
I'd separate it by party to respect people's beliefs that aren't neutral
where these cause social programs to conflict with govt neutrality and respecting all beliefs without
imposing or offending any.

Dear Emily, Did you read the rules for this debate on genetics vs. choice

Dear Progressivepatriot. Did you understand a word Emily said?

Dear Sealybobo...Not much. It's all rather bizarre. Generally, she has this idea that everyone must be and can be accommodated which just does not make any sense. I have no interest in accommodating bigots and theocrats. I've all through this with her before so I'm not going to reinvent that wheel here, especially since it's off topic. I would however like to know what this" charity through government" is.

Hi TheProgressivePatriot and sealybobo
1. If I may cite previous msgs making a distinction between people's internal BELIEFS from external BEHAVIOR, there is a difference between someone having bigoted or discriminatory beliefs internally, and how they act on these where it affects other people.

2. It seems legally there is agreement that nobody can just discriminate against serving customers based on race, religion etc. but the issues have come up about BEHAVIOR and to what degree people can choose to reject BEHAVIOR.

3. Can we agree to apply this same standard to people we consider Bigoted or Biased?

As long as it doesn't affect public policy and precluding people from exercising rights and freedoms they normally would, then just having that belief is not something we can expect to use GOVT to police.
Otherwise, what is our defense when it comes to OUR turn to face someone who wants to 'exclude' all people with liberal views, with pro LGBT values, with Christian or Atheist views FROM INCLUSION in the democratic process and representation?

If we start judging people as bigots who should not be included, what is there to stop liberals from being included or feminists from being included.

I trust the democratic process to check people from imposing views that other people are equally going to object to. There is nothing wrong with including people in the process, especially if the point is to identify points of agreement to form a consensus. Doesn't the process of reaching consensus check against any extreme views from imposing on others?

Why such fear of including people in this process?

Who ever said anything about policing or controlling view or thoughts. Nor did anyone ever say that we should not include people with differing views in the democratic process.

To say that we should not or cannot is no great pearl of wisdom. But if you are a bigot in your heart, you are a bigot regardless of your outward behavior.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear sealybobo:
1. by putting SOCIAL BENEFITS through govt, sealybobo,
do you realize you are already violating "religious bounds"
by Constitutionalists, Libertarians, secularists and others who
DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT.

No you don't. You assume your values/beliefs in relying on govt
instead of charities for "social charity" SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON EVERYONE.

How are you different from someone who would take their
CHRISTIAN charity programs and impose that on everyone through govt?

You do not even see your own bias.

sealybobo: removing religion and BELIEFS from govt goes BOTH WAYS.
That means people who DON'T BELIEVE IN CHARITY THROUGH GOVT
also have the right to REMOVE that and keep it through free choice of charity,
NOT REGULATE SOCIAL CHARITIES AND WELFARE THROUGH GOVT.

Do you understand that this is a FORM of regulating
religious charity through govt?

So the SECULAR/NEUTRAL way I suggest to keep SOCIAL VALUES
AND BELIEFS OUT OF GOVT would be to run these programs
through PARTY so the taxes can still be managed like a Govt program,
BUT GIVE TAXPAYERS A CHOICE OF WHICH SYSTEM MEETS
THEIR STANDARDS AND BELIEFS.

Otherwise sealybobo imposing social benefits when people
DON'T agree on endorsing and recognizing various types of marriage
is CROSSING THE LINE AND IMPOSING BELIEFS THROUGH GOVT.

sealybobo I see you are objective enough to see that
some religion is creeping into govt.

Are you objective enough to see that BELIEFS such
as "same sex benefits" could also be separated out from govt
so this is not injecting conflicting beliefs?

Can you see that also, or not?

I can see it, and I am all for supporting same sex benefits
and marriage, but I'd recommend setting up Singlepayer
and recognizing same sex couples through compatible Party for
members who BELIEVE in that instead of imposing it through
the general public system since NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES THE SAME.

Currently on our tax forms, we can choose money to go to the
parties for Presidential campaigns. So why not have a choice
to manage our marriage and other social benefits by party?
And then we CAN separate who believes or doesn't believe
in funding which things, instead of disagreeing on a federal scale.

if we separate it by party, everyone can get the social programs
they believe in funding and not be forced to fund otherwise.
Advocates of:
Prochoice can fund prochoice.
Prolife can fund prolife.
Singlepayer can fund singlepayer.
Free market can fund free market.
Traditional marriage can endorse traditional marriage and manage those benefits.
Same sex marriage can endorse same sex marriage and manage those benefits.

And NOBODY has to feel forced to endorse any policy they don't believe in.
I'd separate it by party to respect people's beliefs that aren't neutral
where these cause social programs to conflict with govt neutrality and respecting all beliefs without
imposing or offending any.

Dear Emily, Did you read the rules for this debate on genetics vs. choice

Dear Progressivepatriot. Did you understand a word Emily said?

Dear Sealybobo...Not much. It's all rather bizarre. Generally, she has this idea that everyone must be and can be accommodated which just does not make any sense. I have no interest in accommodating bigots and theocrats. I've all through this with her before so I'm not going to reinvent that wheel here, especially since it's off topic. I would however like to know what this" charity through government" is.

Hi TheProgressivePatriot and sealybobo
1. If I may cite previous msgs making a distinction between people's internal BELIEFS from external BEHAVIOR, there is a difference between someone having bigoted or discriminatory beliefs internally, and how they act on these where it affects other people.

2. It seems legally there is agreement that nobody can just discriminate against serving customers based on race, religion etc. but the issues have come up about BEHAVIOR and to what degree people can choose to reject BEHAVIOR.

3. Can we agree to apply this same standard to people we consider Bigoted or Biased?

As long as it doesn't affect public policy and precluding people from exercising rights and freedoms they normally would, then just having that belief is not something we can expect to use GOVT to police.
Otherwise, what is our defense when it comes to OUR turn to face someone who wants to 'exclude' all people with liberal views, with pro LGBT values, with Christian or Atheist views FROM INCLUSION in the democratic process and representation?

If we start judging people as bigots who should not be included, what is there to stop liberals from being included or feminists from being included.

I trust the democratic process to check people from imposing views that other people are equally going to object to. There is nothing wrong with including people in the process, especially if the point is to identify points of agreement to form a consensus. Doesn't the process of reaching consensus check against any extreme views from imposing on others?

Why such fear of including people in this process?

Who ever said anything about policing or controlling view or thoughts. Nor did anyone ever say that we should not include people with differing views in the democratic process.

To say that we should not or cannot is no great pearl of wisdom. But if you are a bigot in your heart, you are a bigot regardless of your outward behavior.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Well including "people in the democratic process" is what I'm trying to do which you called "accommodating bigots and theocrats". Sure I am going to include "bigots and theocrats" in the process.

Where beliefs cross the line into behavior, policy and funding, that's where I say to keep the private preferences in private so people CAN fund the programs they believe in without imposing on others.

Keep what we agree upon in public, so everyone agrees to fund and endorse those publicly through govt; and where we disagree on beliefs, then delegate those policies to be funded privately similar to choice of religion which is chosen and funded voluntarily outside of govt.

(Note: for beliefs that cross over into both personal matters and govt authority, then I suggest either separating and organizing by party where people cannot agree due to conflicting beliefs that govt cannot be abused to force anyone to change or compromise; or forming a consensus on policies/programs in order to justify public funding and endorsement through govt.

and TheProgressivePatriot if you want to go back and discuss "charity through govt" Tommy Tainant started new thread to pinpoint and discuss the pros and cons of that. I think under CDZ, can you pick up there on that topic? Would love to discuss this with you as a fellow progressive. Thanks!)

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Dear Emily, Did you read the rules for this debate on genetics vs. choice

Dear Progressivepatriot. Did you understand a word Emily said?

Dear Sealybobo...Not much. It's all rather bizarre. Generally, she has this idea that everyone must be and can be accommodated which just does not make any sense. I have no interest in accommodating bigots and theocrats. I've all through this with her before so I'm not going to reinvent that wheel here, especially since it's off topic. I would however like to know what this" charity through government" is.

Hi TheProgressivePatriot and sealybobo
1. If I may cite previous msgs making a distinction between people's internal BELIEFS from external BEHAVIOR, there is a difference between someone having bigoted or discriminatory beliefs internally, and how they act on these where it affects other people.

2. It seems legally there is agreement that nobody can just discriminate against serving customers based on race, religion etc. but the issues have come up about BEHAVIOR and to what degree people can choose to reject BEHAVIOR.

3. Can we agree to apply this same standard to people we consider Bigoted or Biased?

As long as it doesn't affect public policy and precluding people from exercising rights and freedoms they normally would, then just having that belief is not something we can expect to use GOVT to police.
Otherwise, what is our defense when it comes to OUR turn to face someone who wants to 'exclude' all people with liberal views, with pro LGBT values, with Christian or Atheist views FROM INCLUSION in the democratic process and representation?

If we start judging people as bigots who should not be included, what is there to stop liberals from being included or feminists from being included.

I trust the democratic process to check people from imposing views that other people are equally going to object to. There is nothing wrong with including people in the process, especially if the point is to identify points of agreement to form a consensus. Doesn't the process of reaching consensus check against any extreme views from imposing on others?

Why such fear of including people in this process?

Who ever said anything about policing or controlling view or thoughts. Nor did anyone ever say that we should not include people with differing views in the democratic process.

To say that we should not or cannot is no great pearl of wisdom. But if you are a bigot in your heart, you are a bigot regardless of your outward behavior.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Well including "people in the democratic process" is what I'm trying to do which you called "accommodating bigots and theocrats". Sure I am going to include "bigots and theocrats" in the process.

Where beliefs cross the line into behavior, policy and funding, that's where I say to keep the private preferences in private so people CAN fund the programs they believe in without imposing on others.

Keep what we agree upon in public, so everyone agrees to fund and endorse those publicly through govt; and where we disagree on beliefs, then delegate those policies to be funded privately similar to choice of religion which is chosen and funded voluntarily outside of govt.

(Note: for beliefs that cross over into both personal matters and govt authority, then I suggest either separating and organizing by party where people cannot agree due to conflicting beliefs that govt cannot be abused to force anyone to change or compromise; or forming a consensus on policies/programs in order to justify public funding and endorsement through govt.

and TheProgressivePatriot if you want to go back and discuss "charity through govt" Tommy Tainant started new thread to pinpoint and discuss the pros and cons of that. I think under CDZ, can you pick up there on that topic? Would love to discuss this with you as a fellow progressive. Thanks!)

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

 

[sealybobo]

Truth is, religion is the thing that isn't necessary in the business of marriage. Sure if you are Catholic you want a Catholic priest to marry you but a church or religion isn't even necessary.

The important part about marriage equality is the legal benefits that come with being marriage. That means LAW and GOVERNMENT get involved. Especially when it comes to who gets what in a divorce. We as a society decide that. Not a religion. Otherwise Muslim American women would get treated like shit when they got divorced. So Emily needs religion to back off, not government.

Dear sealybobo:
1. by putting SOCIAL BENEFITS through govt, sealybobo,
do you realize you are already violating "religious bounds"
by Constitutionalists, Libertarians, secularists and others who
DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT.

No you don't. You assume your values/beliefs in relying on govt
instead of charities for "social charity" SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON EVERYONE.

How are you different from someone who would take their
CHRISTIAN charity programs and impose that on everyone through govt?

You do not even see your own bias.

sealybobo: removing religion and BELIEFS from govt goes BOTH WAYS.
That means people who DON'T BELIEVE IN CHARITY THROUGH GOVT
also have the right to REMOVE that and keep it through free choice of charity,
NOT REGULATE SOCIAL CHARITIES AND WELFARE THROUGH GOVT.

Do you understand that this is a FORM of regulating
religious charity through govt?

So the SECULAR/NEUTRAL way I suggest to keep SOCIAL VALUES
AND BELIEFS OUT OF GOVT would be to run these programs
through PARTY so the taxes can still be managed like a Govt program,
BUT GIVE TAXPAYERS A CHOICE OF WHICH SYSTEM MEETS
THEIR STANDARDS AND BELIEFS.

Otherwise sealybobo imposing social benefits when people
DON'T agree on endorsing and recognizing various types of marriage
is CROSSING THE LINE AND IMPOSING BELIEFS THROUGH GOVT.

sealybobo I see you are objective enough to see that
some religion is creeping into govt.

Are you objective enough to see that BELIEFS such
as "same sex benefits" could also be separated out from govt
so this is not injecting conflicting beliefs?

Can you see that also, or not?

I can see it, and I am all for supporting same sex benefits
and marriage, but I'd recommend setting up Singlepayer
and recognizing same sex couples through compatible Party for
members who BELIEVE in that instead of imposing it through
the general public system since NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES THE SAME.

Currently on our tax forms, we can choose money to go to the
parties for Presidential campaigns. So why not have a choice
to manage our marriage and other social benefits by party?
And then we CAN separate who believes or doesn't believe
in funding which things, instead of disagreeing on a federal scale.

if we separate it by party, everyone can get the social programs
they believe in funding and not be forced to fund otherwise.
Advocates of:
Prochoice can fund prochoice.
Prolife can fund prolife.
Singlepayer can fund singlepayer.
Free market can fund free market.
Traditional marriage can endorse traditional marriage and manage those benefits.
Same sex marriage can endorse same sex marriage and manage those benefits.

And NOBODY has to feel forced to endorse any policy they don't believe in.
I'd separate it by party to respect people's beliefs that aren't neutral
where these cause social programs to conflict with govt neutrality and respecting all beliefs without
imposing or offending any.

Dear Emily, Did you read the rules for this debate on genetics vs. choice

Dear Progressivepatriot. Did you understand a word Emily said?

Dear Sealybobo...Not much. It's all rather bizarre. Generally, she has this idea that everyone must be and can be accommodated which just does not make any sense. I have no interest in accommodating bigots and theocrats. I've all through this with her before so I'm not going to reinvent that wheel here, especially since it's off topic. I would however like to know what this" charity through government" is.

Hi TheProgressivePatriot and sealybobo
1. If I may cite previous msgs making a distinction between people's internal BELIEFS from external BEHAVIOR, there is a difference between someone having bigoted or discriminatory beliefs internally, and how they act on these where it affects other people.

2. It seems legally there is agreement that nobody can just discriminate against serving customers based on race, religion etc. but the issues have come up about BEHAVIOR and to what degree people can choose to reject BEHAVIOR.

3. Can we agree to apply this same standard to people we consider Bigoted or Biased?

As long as it doesn't affect public policy and precluding people from exercising rights and freedoms they normally would, then just having that belief is not something we can expect to use GOVT to police.
Otherwise, what is our defense when it comes to OUR turn to face someone who wants to 'exclude' all people with liberal views, with pro LGBT values, with Christian or Atheist views FROM INCLUSION in the democratic process and representation?

If we start judging people as bigots who should not be included, what is there to stop liberals from being included or feminists from being included.

I trust the democratic process to check people from imposing views that other people are equally going to object to. There is nothing wrong with including people in the process, especially if the point is to identify points of agreement to form a consensus. Doesn't the process of reaching consensus check against any extreme views from imposing on others?

Why such fear of including people in this process?

When I was a valet parker in college a guy handed me his car key and said, "room 408". I said, "I don't need your room number sir, just take this ticket and bring it back when you want your car pulled up". He said, "I didn't say you needed it", then he licked his lips suggestively. I went, "ew", dropped his keys on the ground and said "somebody else park this guys car please".

I was 20 give or take. I wonder how I would handle that 25 years later. I'd probably laugh. Or let him give me a BJ. LOL. JK.

 

[sealybobo]

Dear Progressivepatriot. Did you understand a word Emily said?

Dear Sealybobo...Not much. It's all rather bizarre. Generally, she has this idea that everyone must be and can be accommodated which just does not make any sense. I have no interest in accommodating bigots and theocrats. I've all through this with her before so I'm not going to reinvent that wheel here, especially since it's off topic. I would however like to know what this" charity through government" is.

Hi TheProgressivePatriot and sealybobo
1. If I may cite previous msgs making a distinction between people's internal BELIEFS from external BEHAVIOR, there is a difference between someone having bigoted or discriminatory beliefs internally, and how they act on these where it affects other people.

2. It seems legally there is agreement that nobody can just discriminate against serving customers based on race, religion etc. but the issues have come up about BEHAVIOR and to what degree people can choose to reject BEHAVIOR.

3. Can we agree to apply this same standard to people we consider Bigoted or Biased?

As long as it doesn't affect public policy and precluding people from exercising rights and freedoms they normally would, then just having that belief is not something we can expect to use GOVT to police.
Otherwise, what is our defense when it comes to OUR turn to face someone who wants to 'exclude' all people with liberal views, with pro LGBT values, with Christian or Atheist views FROM INCLUSION in the democratic process and representation?

If we start judging people as bigots who should not be included, what is there to stop liberals from being included or feminists from being included.

I trust the democratic process to check people from imposing views that other people are equally going to object to. There is nothing wrong with including people in the process, especially if the point is to identify points of agreement to form a consensus. Doesn't the process of reaching consensus check against any extreme views from imposing on others?

Why such fear of including people in this process?

Who ever said anything about policing or controlling view or thoughts. Nor did anyone ever say that we should not include people with differing views in the democratic process.

To say that we should not or cannot is no great pearl of wisdom. But if you are a bigot in your heart, you are a bigot regardless of your outward behavior.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Well including "people in the democratic process" is what I'm trying to do which you called "accommodating bigots and theocrats". Sure I am going to include "bigots and theocrats" in the process.

Where beliefs cross the line into behavior, policy and funding, that's where I say to keep the private preferences in private so people CAN fund the programs they believe in without imposing on others.

Keep what we agree upon in public, so everyone agrees to fund and endorse those publicly through govt; and where we disagree on beliefs, then delegate those policies to be funded privately similar to choice of religion which is chosen and funded voluntarily outside of govt.

(Note: for beliefs that cross over into both personal matters and govt authority, then I suggest either separating and organizing by party where people cannot agree due to conflicting beliefs that govt cannot be abused to force anyone to change or compromise; or forming a consensus on policies/programs in order to justify public funding and endorsement through govt.

and TheProgressivePatriot if you want to go back and discuss "charity through govt" Tommy Tainant started new thread to pinpoint and discuss the pros and cons of that. I think under CDZ, can you pick up there on that topic? Would love to discuss this with you as a fellow progressive. Thanks!)

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

She probably thinks gays should understand where homophobes are coming from and instead of push for gay marriage and equality they should instead push for something that is separate but equal. Finding common ground with people who think your whole life is a sin is rather difficult. I'd just rather say fuck you and fight them in court. Let the constitution and eventual public opinion tell them they are wrong.

My how far we have come

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Dear Emily, Did you read the rules for this debate on genetics vs. choice

Dear Progressivepatriot. Did you understand a word Emily said?

Dear Sealybobo...Not much. It's all rather bizarre. Generally, she has this idea that everyone must be and can be accommodated which just does not make any sense. I have no interest in accommodating bigots and theocrats. I've all through this with her before so I'm not going to reinvent that wheel here, especially since it's off topic. I would however like to know what this" charity through government" is.

Hi TheProgressivePatriot and sealybobo
1. If I may cite previous msgs making a distinction between people's internal BELIEFS from external BEHAVIOR, there is a difference between someone having bigoted or discriminatory beliefs internally, and how they act on these where it affects other people.

2. It seems legally there is agreement that nobody can just discriminate against serving customers based on race, religion etc. but the issues have come up about BEHAVIOR and to what degree people can choose to reject BEHAVIOR.

3. Can we agree to apply this same standard to people we consider Bigoted or Biased?

As long as it doesn't affect public policy and precluding people from exercising rights and freedoms they normally would, then just having that belief is not something we can expect to use GOVT to police.
Otherwise, what is our defense when it comes to OUR turn to face someone who wants to 'exclude' all people with liberal views, with pro LGBT values, with Christian or Atheist views FROM INCLUSION in the democratic process and representation?

If we start judging people as bigots who should not be included, what is there to stop liberals from being included or feminists from being included.

I trust the democratic process to check people from imposing views that other people are equally going to object to. There is nothing wrong with including people in the process, especially if the point is to identify points of agreement to form a consensus. Doesn't the process of reaching consensus check against any extreme views from imposing on others?

Why such fear of including people in this process?

Who ever said anything about policing or controlling view or thoughts. Nor did anyone ever say that we should not include people with differing views in the democratic process.

To say that we should not or cannot is no great pearl of wisdom. But if you are a bigot in your heart, you are a bigot regardless of your outward behavior.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Well including "people in the democratic process" is what I'm trying to do which you called "accommodating bigots and theocrats". Sure I am going to include "bigots and theocrats" in the process.

Where beliefs cross the line into behavior, policy and funding, that's where I say to keep the private preferences in private so people CAN fund the programs they believe in without imposing on others.

Keep what we agree upon in public, so everyone agrees to fund and endorse those publicly through govt; and where we disagree on beliefs, then delegate those policies to be funded privately similar to choice of religion which is chosen and funded voluntarily outside of govt.

(Note: for beliefs that cross over into both personal matters and govt authority, then I suggest either separating and organizing by party where people cannot agree due to conflicting beliefs that govt cannot be abused to force anyone to change or compromise; or forming a consensus on policies/programs in order to justify public funding and endorsement through govt.

and TheProgressivePatriot if you want to go back and discuss "charity through govt" Tommy Tainant started new thread to pinpoint and discuss the pros and cons of that. I think under CDZ, can you pick up there on that topic? Would love to discuss this with you as a fellow progressive. Thanks!)

Additional instructions:
1. Do not use abstract concepts

2. Do present your plan for accommodating those opposed to gay rights while also protecting and accommodating gays and those who believe in gay rights in practical, concreate and workable terms using everyday, real world situations.

3. Extra Credit: Explain why you think those who would deny rights to others should have the same rights and the same consideration as those who they would deny rights to.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Progressivepatriot. Did you understand a word Emily said?

Dear Sealybobo...Not much. It's all rather bizarre. Generally, she has this idea that everyone must be and can be accommodated which just does not make any sense. I have no interest in accommodating bigots and theocrats. I've all through this with her before so I'm not going to reinvent that wheel here, especially since it's off topic. I would however like to know what this" charity through government" is.

Hi TheProgressivePatriot and sealybobo
1. If I may cite previous msgs making a distinction between people's internal BELIEFS from external BEHAVIOR, there is a difference between someone having bigoted or discriminatory beliefs internally, and how they act on these where it affects other people.

2. It seems legally there is agreement that nobody can just discriminate against serving customers based on race, religion etc. but the issues have come up about BEHAVIOR and to what degree people can choose to reject BEHAVIOR.

3. Can we agree to apply this same standard to people we consider Bigoted or Biased?

As long as it doesn't affect public policy and precluding people from exercising rights and freedoms they normally would, then just having that belief is not something we can expect to use GOVT to police.
Otherwise, what is our defense when it comes to OUR turn to face someone who wants to 'exclude' all people with liberal views, with pro LGBT values, with Christian or Atheist views FROM INCLUSION in the democratic process and representation?

If we start judging people as bigots who should not be included, what is there to stop liberals from being included or feminists from being included.

I trust the democratic process to check people from imposing views that other people are equally going to object to. There is nothing wrong with including people in the process, especially if the point is to identify points of agreement to form a consensus. Doesn't the process of reaching consensus check against any extreme views from imposing on others?

Why such fear of including people in this process?

Who ever said anything about policing or controlling view or thoughts. Nor did anyone ever say that we should not include people with differing views in the democratic process.

To say that we should not or cannot is no great pearl of wisdom. But if you are a bigot in your heart, you are a bigot regardless of your outward behavior.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Well including "people in the democratic process" is what I'm trying to do which you called "accommodating bigots and theocrats". Sure I am going to include "bigots and theocrats" in the process.

Where beliefs cross the line into behavior, policy and funding, that's where I say to keep the private preferences in private so people CAN fund the programs they believe in without imposing on others.

Keep what we agree upon in public, so everyone agrees to fund and endorse those publicly through govt; and where we disagree on beliefs, then delegate those policies to be funded privately similar to choice of religion which is chosen and funded voluntarily outside of govt.

(Note: for beliefs that cross over into both personal matters and govt authority, then I suggest either separating and organizing by party where people cannot agree due to conflicting beliefs that govt cannot be abused to force anyone to change or compromise; or forming a consensus on policies/programs in order to justify public funding and endorsement through govt.

and TheProgressivePatriot if you want to go back and discuss "charity through govt" Tommy Tainant started new thread to pinpoint and discuss the pros and cons of that. I think under CDZ, can you pick up there on that topic? Would love to discuss this with you as a fellow progressive. Thanks!)

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

Dear TheProgressivePatriot

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

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

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

That's just an example.

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

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

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

And same with the Republicans.

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

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

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear sealybobo:
1. by putting SOCIAL BENEFITS through govt, sealybobo,
do you realize you are already violating "religious bounds"
by Constitutionalists, Libertarians, secularists and others who
DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT.

No you don't. You assume your values/beliefs in relying on govt
instead of charities for "social charity" SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON EVERYONE.

How are you different from someone who would take their
CHRISTIAN charity programs and impose that on everyone through govt?

You do not even see your own bias.

sealybobo: removing religion and BELIEFS from govt goes BOTH WAYS.
That means people who DON'T BELIEVE IN CHARITY THROUGH GOVT
also have the right to REMOVE that and keep it through free choice of charity,
NOT REGULATE SOCIAL CHARITIES AND WELFARE THROUGH GOVT.

Do you understand that this is a FORM of regulating
religious charity through govt?

So the SECULAR/NEUTRAL way I suggest to keep SOCIAL VALUES
AND BELIEFS OUT OF GOVT would be to run these programs
through PARTY so the taxes can still be managed like a Govt program,
BUT GIVE TAXPAYERS A CHOICE OF WHICH SYSTEM MEETS
THEIR STANDARDS AND BELIEFS.

Otherwise sealybobo imposing social benefits when people
DON'T agree on endorsing and recognizing various types of marriage
is CROSSING THE LINE AND IMPOSING BELIEFS THROUGH GOVT.

sealybobo I see you are objective enough to see that
some religion is creeping into govt.

Are you objective enough to see that BELIEFS such
as "same sex benefits" could also be separated out from govt
so this is not injecting conflicting beliefs?

Can you see that also, or not?

I can see it, and I am all for supporting same sex benefits
and marriage, but I'd recommend setting up Singlepayer
and recognizing same sex couples through compatible Party for
members who BELIEVE in that instead of imposing it through
the general public system since NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES THE SAME.

Currently on our tax forms, we can choose money to go to the
parties for Presidential campaigns. So why not have a choice
to manage our marriage and other social benefits by party?
And then we CAN separate who believes or doesn't believe
in funding which things, instead of disagreeing on a federal scale.

if we separate it by party, everyone can get the social programs
they believe in funding and not be forced to fund otherwise.
Advocates of:
Prochoice can fund prochoice.
Prolife can fund prolife.
Singlepayer can fund singlepayer.
Free market can fund free market.
Traditional marriage can endorse traditional marriage and manage those benefits.
Same sex marriage can endorse same sex marriage and manage those benefits.

And NOBODY has to feel forced to endorse any policy they don't believe in.
I'd separate it by party to respect people's beliefs that aren't neutral
where these cause social programs to conflict with govt neutrality and respecting all beliefs without
imposing or offending any.

Dear Emily, Did you read the rules for this debate on genetics vs. choice

Dear Progressivepatriot. Did you understand a word Emily said?

Dear Sealybobo...Not much. It's all rather bizarre. Generally, she has this idea that everyone must be and can be accommodated which just does not make any sense. I have no interest in accommodating bigots and theocrats. I've all through this with her before so I'm not going to reinvent that wheel here, especially since it's off topic. I would however like to know what this" charity through government" is.

Hi TheProgressivePatriot and sealybobo
1. If I may cite previous msgs making a distinction between people's internal BELIEFS from external BEHAVIOR, there is a difference between someone having bigoted or discriminatory beliefs internally, and how they act on these where it affects other people.

2. It seems legally there is agreement that nobody can just discriminate against serving customers based on race, religion etc. but the issues have come up about BEHAVIOR and to what degree people can choose to reject BEHAVIOR.

3. Can we agree to apply this same standard to people we consider Bigoted or Biased?

As long as it doesn't affect public policy and precluding people from exercising rights and freedoms they normally would, then just having that belief is not something we can expect to use GOVT to police.
Otherwise, what is our defense when it comes to OUR turn to face someone who wants to 'exclude' all people with liberal views, with pro LGBT values, with Christian or Atheist views FROM INCLUSION in the democratic process and representation?

If we start judging people as bigots who should not be included, what is there to stop liberals from being included or feminists from being included.

I trust the democratic process to check people from imposing views that other people are equally going to object to. There is nothing wrong with including people in the process, especially if the point is to identify points of agreement to form a consensus. Doesn't the process of reaching consensus check against any extreme views from imposing on others?

Why such fear of including people in this process?

When I was a valet parker in college a guy handed me his car key and said, "room 408". I said, "I don't need your room number sir, just take this ticket and bring it back when you want your car pulled up". He said, "I didn't say you needed it", then he licked his lips suggestively. I went, "ew", dropped his keys on the ground and said "somebody else park this guys car please".

I was 20 give or take. I wonder how I would handle that 25 years later. I'd probably laugh. Or let him give me a BJ. LOL. JK.

sealybobo the last time a woman hit on me was when I was working on an environmentalist rally. She "invited me over to work at her house," entered the room topless and asked if she could get me anything to eat, including "peach?"

Years later when I told a friend about this (and an earlier incident where a grad student coordinating a progressive forum
"invited me over to his house" then stripped naked and hugged me)

My friend said heck, maybe he should become a progressive, if that's the way to get naked people hitting on you!

(PS to the first offer, I looked her in the eye and said no thanks and didn't look down. For the guy grad student, I said "I'm sorry but you're not my husband" implying that I shouldn't have intimate hugs from anyone else.)

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Dear Sealybobo...Not much. It's all rather bizarre. Generally, she has this idea that everyone must be and can be accommodated which just does not make any sense. I have no interest in accommodating bigots and theocrats. I've all through this with her before so I'm not going to reinvent that wheel here, especially since it's off topic. I would however like to know what this" charity through government" is.

Hi TheProgressivePatriot and sealybobo
1. If I may cite previous msgs making a distinction between people's internal BELIEFS from external BEHAVIOR, there is a difference between someone having bigoted or discriminatory beliefs internally, and how they act on these where it affects other people.

2. It seems legally there is agreement that nobody can just discriminate against serving customers based on race, religion etc. but the issues have come up about BEHAVIOR and to what degree people can choose to reject BEHAVIOR.

3. Can we agree to apply this same standard to people we consider Bigoted or Biased?

As long as it doesn't affect public policy and precluding people from exercising rights and freedoms they normally would, then just having that belief is not something we can expect to use GOVT to police.
Otherwise, what is our defense when it comes to OUR turn to face someone who wants to 'exclude' all people with liberal views, with pro LGBT values, with Christian or Atheist views FROM INCLUSION in the democratic process and representation?

If we start judging people as bigots who should not be included, what is there to stop liberals from being included or feminists from being included.

I trust the democratic process to check people from imposing views that other people are equally going to object to. There is nothing wrong with including people in the process, especially if the point is to identify points of agreement to form a consensus. Doesn't the process of reaching consensus check against any extreme views from imposing on others?

Why such fear of including people in this process?

Who ever said anything about policing or controlling view or thoughts. Nor did anyone ever say that we should not include people with differing views in the democratic process.

To say that we should not or cannot is no great pearl of wisdom. But if you are a bigot in your heart, you are a bigot regardless of your outward behavior.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Well including "people in the democratic process" is what I'm trying to do which you called "accommodating bigots and theocrats". Sure I am going to include "bigots and theocrats" in the process.

Where beliefs cross the line into behavior, policy and funding, that's where I say to keep the private preferences in private so people CAN fund the programs they believe in without imposing on others.

Keep what we agree upon in public, so everyone agrees to fund and endorse those publicly through govt; and where we disagree on beliefs, then delegate those policies to be funded privately similar to choice of religion which is chosen and funded voluntarily outside of govt.

(Note: for beliefs that cross over into both personal matters and govt authority, then I suggest either separating and organizing by party where people cannot agree due to conflicting beliefs that govt cannot be abused to force anyone to change or compromise; or forming a consensus on policies/programs in order to justify public funding and endorsement through govt.

and TheProgressivePatriot if you want to go back and discuss "charity through govt" Tommy Tainant started new thread to pinpoint and discuss the pros and cons of that. I think under CDZ, can you pick up there on that topic? Would love to discuss this with you as a fellow progressive. Thanks!)

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

Dear TheProgressivePatriot

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

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

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

That's just an example.

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

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

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

And same with the Republicans.

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

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

I'm not asking you to write up plans regarding anyone's beliefs. I'm asking you to explain, in practical, real life terms how everyone can be accommodated on the issue of gay rights. Get focused

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

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Progressivepatriot. Did you understand a word Emily said?

Dear Sealybobo...Not much. It's all rather bizarre. Generally, she has this idea that everyone must be and can be accommodated which just does not make any sense. I have no interest in accommodating bigots and theocrats. I've all through this with her before so I'm not going to reinvent that wheel here, especially since it's off topic. I would however like to know what this" charity through government" is.

Hi TheProgressivePatriot and sealybobo
1. If I may cite previous msgs making a distinction between people's internal BELIEFS from external BEHAVIOR, there is a difference between someone having bigoted or discriminatory beliefs internally, and how they act on these where it affects other people.

2. It seems legally there is agreement that nobody can just discriminate against serving customers based on race, religion etc. but the issues have come up about BEHAVIOR and to what degree people can choose to reject BEHAVIOR.

3. Can we agree to apply this same standard to people we consider Bigoted or Biased?

As long as it doesn't affect public policy and precluding people from exercising rights and freedoms they normally would, then just having that belief is not something we can expect to use GOVT to police.
Otherwise, what is our defense when it comes to OUR turn to face someone who wants to 'exclude' all people with liberal views, with pro LGBT values, with Christian or Atheist views FROM INCLUSION in the democratic process and representation?

If we start judging people as bigots who should not be included, what is there to stop liberals from being included or feminists from being included.

I trust the democratic process to check people from imposing views that other people are equally going to object to. There is nothing wrong with including people in the process, especially if the point is to identify points of agreement to form a consensus. Doesn't the process of reaching consensus check against any extreme views from imposing on others?

Why such fear of including people in this process?

Who ever said anything about policing or controlling view or thoughts. Nor did anyone ever say that we should not include people with differing views in the democratic process.

To say that we should not or cannot is no great pearl of wisdom. But if you are a bigot in your heart, you are a bigot regardless of your outward behavior.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Well including "people in the democratic process" is what I'm trying to do which you called "accommodating bigots and theocrats". Sure I am going to include "bigots and theocrats" in the process.

Where beliefs cross the line into behavior, policy and funding, that's where I say to keep the private preferences in private so people CAN fund the programs they believe in without imposing on others.

Keep what we agree upon in public, so everyone agrees to fund and endorse those publicly through govt; and where we disagree on beliefs, then delegate those policies to be funded privately similar to choice of religion which is chosen and funded voluntarily outside of govt.

(Note: for beliefs that cross over into both personal matters and govt authority, then I suggest either separating and organizing by party where people cannot agree due to conflicting beliefs that govt cannot be abused to force anyone to change or compromise; or forming a consensus on policies/programs in order to justify public funding and endorsement through govt.

and TheProgressivePatriot if you want to go back and discuss "charity through govt" Tommy Tainant started new thread to pinpoint and discuss the pros and cons of that. I think under CDZ, can you pick up there on that topic? Would love to discuss this with you as a fellow progressive. Thanks!)

Additional instructions:
1. Do not use abstract concepts

2. Do present your plan for accommodating those opposed to gay rights while also protecting and accommodating gays and those who believe in gay rights in practical, concreate and workable terms using everyday, real world situations.

3. Extra Credit: Explain why you think those who would deny rights to others should have the same rights and the same consideration as those who they would deny rights to.

^ this is like outlining why people would deny Christians equal rights to fund spiritual healing when the issue is separating that from govt ^ or outlining why shouldn't people have equal rights to conduct communions as open or closed, or baptisms a certain way, when these are already options under religious freedom and don't need to be endorsed by govt to be legal choices.

What we could do, TheProgressivePatriot
is list out which "political beliefs" are causing the conflicts and set up special commissions to address each area:
* voting rights vs regulations
* gun rights vs regulations
* global warming vs regulations
* marriage laws and beliefs
* benefits and health care
* abortion and birth control
etc.

We do want equal rights and protections, but we don't want legislation that imposes a bias, one way or another, where one group is claiming discrimination, imposition, exclusion, infringement, etc. by the other.

The issue is about resolving conflicts where ALL people of ALL groups and beliefs feel equally protected and represented.

Just pushing a biased law and saying that's enough to include all people ISN'T enough if people are saying it is excluding them.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi TheProgressivePatriot and sealybobo
1. If I may cite previous msgs making a distinction between people's internal BELIEFS from external BEHAVIOR, there is a difference between someone having bigoted or discriminatory beliefs internally, and how they act on these where it affects other people.

2. It seems legally there is agreement that nobody can just discriminate against serving customers based on race, religion etc. but the issues have come up about BEHAVIOR and to what degree people can choose to reject BEHAVIOR.

3. Can we agree to apply this same standard to people we consider Bigoted or Biased?

As long as it doesn't affect public policy and precluding people from exercising rights and freedoms they normally would, then just having that belief is not something we can expect to use GOVT to police.
Otherwise, what is our defense when it comes to OUR turn to face someone who wants to 'exclude' all people with liberal views, with pro LGBT values, with Christian or Atheist views FROM INCLUSION in the democratic process and representation?

If we start judging people as bigots who should not be included, what is there to stop liberals from being included or feminists from being included.

I trust the democratic process to check people from imposing views that other people are equally going to object to. There is nothing wrong with including people in the process, especially if the point is to identify points of agreement to form a consensus. Doesn't the process of reaching consensus check against any extreme views from imposing on others?

Why such fear of including people in this process?

Who ever said anything about policing or controlling view or thoughts. Nor did anyone ever say that we should not include people with differing views in the democratic process.

To say that we should not or cannot is no great pearl of wisdom. But if you are a bigot in your heart, you are a bigot regardless of your outward behavior.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Well including "people in the democratic process" is what I'm trying to do which you called "accommodating bigots and theocrats". Sure I am going to include "bigots and theocrats" in the process.

Where beliefs cross the line into behavior, policy and funding, that's where I say to keep the private preferences in private so people CAN fund the programs they believe in without imposing on others.

Keep what we agree upon in public, so everyone agrees to fund and endorse those publicly through govt; and where we disagree on beliefs, then delegate those policies to be funded privately similar to choice of religion which is chosen and funded voluntarily outside of govt.

(Note: for beliefs that cross over into both personal matters and govt authority, then I suggest either separating and organizing by party where people cannot agree due to conflicting beliefs that govt cannot be abused to force anyone to change or compromise; or forming a consensus on policies/programs in order to justify public funding and endorsement through govt.

and TheProgressivePatriot if you want to go back and discuss "charity through govt" Tommy Tainant started new thread to pinpoint and discuss the pros and cons of that. I think under CDZ, can you pick up there on that topic? Would love to discuss this with you as a fellow progressive. Thanks!)

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

Dear TheProgressivePatriot

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

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

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

That's just an example.

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

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

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

And same with the Republicans.

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

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

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

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

Many people already do not believe in that.

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

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

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

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

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi TheProgressivePatriot and sealybobo
1. If I may cite previous msgs making a distinction between people's internal BELIEFS from external BEHAVIOR, there is a difference between someone having bigoted or discriminatory beliefs internally, and how they act on these where it affects other people.

2. It seems legally there is agreement that nobody can just discriminate against serving customers based on race, religion etc. but the issues have come up about BEHAVIOR and to what degree people can choose to reject BEHAVIOR.

3. Can we agree to apply this same standard to people we consider Bigoted or Biased?

As long as it doesn't affect public policy and precluding people from exercising rights and freedoms they normally would, then just having that belief is not something we can expect to use GOVT to police.
Otherwise, what is our defense when it comes to OUR turn to face someone who wants to 'exclude' all people with liberal views, with pro LGBT values, with Christian or Atheist views FROM INCLUSION in the democratic process and representation?

If we start judging people as bigots who should not be included, what is there to stop liberals from being included or feminists from being included.

I trust the democratic process to check people from imposing views that other people are equally going to object to. There is nothing wrong with including people in the process, especially if the point is to identify points of agreement to form a consensus. Doesn't the process of reaching consensus check against any extreme views from imposing on others?

Why such fear of including people in this process?

Who ever said anything about policing or controlling view or thoughts. Nor did anyone ever say that we should not include people with differing views in the democratic process.

To say that we should not or cannot is no great pearl of wisdom. But if you are a bigot in your heart, you are a bigot regardless of your outward behavior.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Well including "people in the democratic process" is what I'm trying to do which you called "accommodating bigots and theocrats". Sure I am going to include "bigots and theocrats" in the process.

Where beliefs cross the line into behavior, policy and funding, that's where I say to keep the private preferences in private so people CAN fund the programs they believe in without imposing on others.

Keep what we agree upon in public, so everyone agrees to fund and endorse those publicly through govt; and where we disagree on beliefs, then delegate those policies to be funded privately similar to choice of religion which is chosen and funded voluntarily outside of govt.

(Note: for beliefs that cross over into both personal matters and govt authority, then I suggest either separating and organizing by party where people cannot agree due to conflicting beliefs that govt cannot be abused to force anyone to change or compromise; or forming a consensus on policies/programs in order to justify public funding and endorsement through govt.

and TheProgressivePatriot if you want to go back and discuss "charity through govt" Tommy Tainant started new thread to pinpoint and discuss the pros and cons of that. I think under CDZ, can you pick up there on that topic? Would love to discuss this with you as a fellow progressive. Thanks!)

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

Dear TheProgressivePatriot

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

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

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

That's just an example.

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

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

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

And same with the Republicans.

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

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

I'm not asking you to write up plans regarding anyone's beliefs. I'm asking you to explain, in practical, real life terms how everyone can be accommodated on the issue of gay rights. Get focused

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

^ Dear TheProgressivePatriot
The point is to address and solve this problem as well. By totally separating from govt, then govt is no longer 'endorsing' abortion, gay marriage or any other thing that is causing conflict over beliefs.

Exactly the point, to stop all such bickering by
only reserving to federal govt what all the public agrees on, and setting up system of handling the rest by groups who believe in that. And still make it equal.

That is the challenge but that is the promise of equal justice and equal protections of law. Until people have equal access, that does not rely on govt pushing or forcing things against the will of the people, then we don't have freedom, equality or liberty. We have to be able to support our own programs ourselves to be fully independent and not vulnerable to abuse or oppression by depending on other people, especially depending on forcing people who disagree.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Who ever said anything about policing or controlling view or thoughts. Nor did anyone ever say that we should not include people with differing views in the democratic process.

To say that we should not or cannot is no great pearl of wisdom. But if you are a bigot in your heart, you are a bigot regardless of your outward behavior.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Well including "people in the democratic process" is what I'm trying to do which you called "accommodating bigots and theocrats". Sure I am going to include "bigots and theocrats" in the process.

Where beliefs cross the line into behavior, policy and funding, that's where I say to keep the private preferences in private so people CAN fund the programs they believe in without imposing on others.

Keep what we agree upon in public, so everyone agrees to fund and endorse those publicly through govt; and where we disagree on beliefs, then delegate those policies to be funded privately similar to choice of religion which is chosen and funded voluntarily outside of govt.

(Note: for beliefs that cross over into both personal matters and govt authority, then I suggest either separating and organizing by party where people cannot agree due to conflicting beliefs that govt cannot be abused to force anyone to change or compromise; or forming a consensus on policies/programs in order to justify public funding and endorsement through govt.

and TheProgressivePatriot if you want to go back and discuss "charity through govt" Tommy Tainant started new thread to pinpoint and discuss the pros and cons of that. I think under CDZ, can you pick up there on that topic? Would love to discuss this with you as a fellow progressive. Thanks!)

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

Dear TheProgressivePatriot

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

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

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

That's just an example.

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

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

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

And same with the Republicans.

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

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

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

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

Many people already do not believe in that.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Well including "people in the democratic process" is what I'm trying to do which you called "accommodating bigots and theocrats". Sure I am going to include "bigots and theocrats" in the process.

Where beliefs cross the line into behavior, policy and funding, that's where I say to keep the private preferences in private so people CAN fund the programs they believe in without imposing on others.

Keep what we agree upon in public, so everyone agrees to fund and endorse those publicly through govt; and where we disagree on beliefs, then delegate those policies to be funded privately similar to choice of religion which is chosen and funded voluntarily outside of govt.

(Note: for beliefs that cross over into both personal matters and govt authority, then I suggest either separating and organizing by party where people cannot agree due to conflicting beliefs that govt cannot be abused to force anyone to change or compromise; or forming a consensus on policies/programs in order to justify public funding and endorsement through govt.

and TheProgressivePatriot if you want to go back and discuss "charity through govt" Tommy Tainant started new thread to pinpoint and discuss the pros and cons of that. I think under CDZ, can you pick up there on that topic? Would love to discuss this with you as a fellow progressive. Thanks!)

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

Dear TheProgressivePatriot

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

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

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

That's just an example.

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

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

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

And same with the Republicans.

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

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

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

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

Many people already do not believe in that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. But I think you are saying you don't believe that separating marriage and benefits by party is going to protect rights equally.

So I said that is a different thread discussing why it isn't equal protection.

My solution still stands to separate the policies and funding by party. To have both parties write out their programs for what they believe in including in health care, marriage and benefits,
and then have members register through their own party programs.

Of course I don't have all the specifics, that's just the core idea I would present to the Texas govt that is torn in half over the abortion, marriage and LGBT issues.

I would tell my legislators either write out legislation that is going to protect both the progay and antigay believers equally, or keep this out of govt and let people manage their own health care, their own marriage benefits, etc.

TheProgressivePatriot
if you want ME to personally be involved in the facilitation and writing of this, sure, I'd love to have a full time job coordinating it, because that's what it would take, a full time job.

If we are paying senators reps and governors to manage this, that is their job. And if they can't do it, let's hire and create jobs for all these party leaders and politicians who could work full time jobs in administrating benefits. Sure.

But I'm not in charge of writing policies for other people. I trust the members and leaders of each party to work out the terms they need to be equally protected. Just like people create their own charity, church programs or businesses.

If the Catholic church can administer their own schools, hospitals, nonprofit charities, programs to help families and homeless, then why can't political groups model their programs after that?

Who says it has to be through govt?

 

[320 Years of History]

the process of reaching consensus

I like collaboration as much as the next guy, but there are instances in which I have found consensus not worth a hill of beans.

 

[emilynghiem]

the process of reaching consensus

I like collaboration as much as the next guy, but there are instances in which I have found consensus not worth a hill of beans.

Thanks 320 Years of History and also TheProgressivePatriot
And I'm saying the consensus process would
INCLUDE distinguishing what is and what isn't worth it.
So that we focus on what is the issue, what are the solutions,
and what is workable, beneficial and redressing the grievance.

 

[Clementine]

That's it. No fancy thesis, no viewpoint of my own (yet). All that lies here is a challenge to you the reader to prove the origins of homosexuality. Who here can make the more compelling case for their side?

The rules are as follows:

1. No ad hominem (personal attacks)
2. No mention of any political party (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, et cetera).
3. No anti-Gay or anti-Christian commentary.
4. All arguments must be substantiated by citing credible and scientific sources.
5. No arguments based on emotional viewpoints.
6. No discussion regarding religious or non religious views of Homosexuality. Let the science (or your interpretation therein) do the talking.
7. Attempts to derail this thread will be actively reported to forum staff.
8. This thread will be governed under "Zone 1" regulations.

My two cents worth, based on knowing homosexual people, I'd like to offer a few things for consideration.

While some have said they realized early on that they are gay, I have known people who were literally the last to know they were gay. Maybe they just weren't ready to accept it. One was a classmate and most of us just knew he was gay by the 7th grade but he had no idea and even claimed it was wrong. Wasn't until he graduated and went to college that he finally came to terms with it. Was really harder back then than it is now for a person to "come out." When you know someone like this, you realize that it's not a choice for them.

I knew another woman who dated guys through high school but never had any serious relationships. She met another woman in college and they fell in love. She explained once that she never thought of herself as gay but discovered she was in love with another woman. As far as I know, the relationship went on for several years. That was a long time ago and for the past 20 years, she has been married to the same man and has 4 kids. Saw her at our class reunion a few years back.

There are some people who just seem genuinely confused or there are those who would sleep with anyone or anything. I don't think it's kind to put all people in one group since there are mentally ill people and perverts who are likely to consider themselves part of the LGBT group. Even gays and transgenders shouldn't be in the same group because they are not alike.

No way any of us can know what makes people tick. As long as people are decent to others, give them your blessing and don't judge.

 

[320 Years of History]

While some have said they realized early on that they are gay, I have known people who were literally the last to know they were gay. Maybe they just weren't ready to accept it.

I sure have seen that. There was a guy in my high school class whom the nastiest kids called the "f-word," but whom everyone thought was "queer" (which is what we called it back then). He swore he wasn't and got all kids of pissed off when he got called names. He could fight too and he played sports, and when he made a good play he was "all that and a bag of chips," and when he didn't, he was a "f*ggot."

I recall seeing the wrongness of how he was treated, but I also back then didn't have the balls to stand up and say something about it. Looking back, I wish I had. Learning to stand up for what's right and learning to respect the validity of what folks who are living "a moment" say about how they feel about their treatment by others was a lesson it took some years into adulthood for me to arrive at understanding.

So when a gay person says "whatever" about their experience as a gay person, I think it's real. It doesn't make sense to me that folks will say X is how they feel/felt and how it worked for them when that is not so. Why would they do that? They have nothing to gain from it. Indeed if the person is white and male, they have more to lose by recounting their experience than they have to gain.