Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?

[RKMBrown]

Now not giving a marriage license is "arbitrary" despotic control being done "to" gays. LOL, you're being a complete moon bat.

I want government to leave me alone. If I got that, I would be in heaven. The idea they need to give me shit to be happy is inconceivable to me.

So do you want to end all contract law or just marriage contracts?

Who's the moon bat?

You're losing it. Is that supposed to be a serious question? Do you want me to talk to you like a 12 year old as the questions you are asking me? That logic is like I'm talking to a liberal.

Marriage is not a "contract." It is a government function, which involves government regulations, taxes, court cases as determined by government not the participants and government can change at any time for any reason because they feel like it, which again is not how a contract works. The couple is bound by whatever government decides, whether they agree or not.

To compare that to a voluntary contract is the level of a liberal. In fact, that's what marriage should be, if a couple wants a contract behind their marriage, they should work it out and have a contract. If they want a Catholic marriage, they should work it out with each other and their church. Government should not treat it's citizens differently, like any other contract, they should just provide a venue for remediation.

To call what government does a "contract" is ridiculous, and to suggest that my wanting to end that means I want to end all actual voluntary contracts because of that government bastardization is something I expect from rdean or rightwinger, not you.

You are completely wrong. There is a religious marriage ceremony, and there is also a marriage licence, which is a contract. The contract, aka. a marriage license that you sign when you get married has nothing to do with the marriage ceremony. The point of the contract is to have a binding agreement regarding mutual assets.

I did not say government does a contract. You are being stupid.

Government is the law, the law enforces contracts. In this case a government provided or selected witness, certifies that the two parties agreed to the enter civil union. It's no different than getting your documents notarized. However, without government enforcement all contracts would be non-binding worthless pieces of paper. Duh.

 

[RKMBrown]

Now not giving a marriage license is "arbitrary" despotic control being done "to" gays. LOL, you're being a complete moon bat.

I want government to leave me alone. If I got that, I would be in heaven. The idea they need to give me shit to be happy is inconceivable to me.

So you'd be good with government banning all marriages? Yes or no?

No. Government should not have a function called marriage. They have no power to "ban" what citizens do between themselves. Not recognizing something is not "banning" it. Government should treat all it's citizens the same. Government marriage is discriminatory whether or not gays can get in on the discrimination or not.

That was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.

You're confusing two disparate issues.

Issue one is can gays get married by a religious institution. The answer to that question is already yes and always has been yes. Government does not stop anyone from having a marriage ceremony or just claiming to be married, because getting married in the religious sense is merely a non-binding agreement between two people that may or may not have been witnessed. Well non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage.

The second issue is the one of the legal matter for the civil union of two people who have agreed to enter a marriage contract, aka. marriage licence.

Legal marriage definition:

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]:
No, that's clearly a misinterpretation of what I'm saying, Sorry.

I can try to describe it more clearly: is if someone is personally unhappy about their
situation, even their gender if they KNOW their personality/soul is the opposite,
(like my friend who was resentful he had to present himself as male when inside his personality was born female),
and THEY/THAT PERSON (NOT anyone or anything in society) feels their natural orientation/gender is [fill in the blank]
then the spiritual healing process is to help them make peace with
WHATEVER they need to be at peace/come out as their NATURAL selves.

This is coming from THEM and what THEY say they are, want or need in life.
That's what determines if something feels wrong or unnatural to them.
If THEY say it isn't working, they're not happy, and want things to change.

So it is NOT up to you, me, APA, Christian or political groups, media,
the Democrat or Republican party to tell anyone what process they can or
cannot go through to come to peace with who they are naturally as a person.

It can be any form, every person is unique, I've heard just about everything.
Everyone I know struggles to come to peace with themselves in life,
so it really applies to all people but in different ways. Gender/orientation
is just one area, it can be people unhappy about their jobs or their degree.
But it's because THEY know they want something else, not anyone forcing or
guilt tripping them or telling them they can't have or be X Y Z. Most of the
guilt they want to GET AWAY FROM is from these external sources telling
them the OPPOSITE of what they really want, feel and know inside.

it is NOT about "other people" or "society/institutions" TELLING you this is
wrong, that can't be natural, etc etc.

That is the guilt/fear based "conditioning or programming" that
the spiritual healing works to OVERCOME by forgiveness. NOT to
inject, impose or program more garbage on top of what this
person is fighting to get out of their heads and life so they can be what they want in life.

Inevitable I spent months online with my transgender friend struggling
to get "all that guilt based programming out of his head," so he could
come to peace. I had no idea he would come out as female, so I knew
that had to come from him because it sure didn't come from me!

My point was only to help him forgive and let go whatever was causing his distress fear
and resentment about judgment going on about orientation, gender, sexuality, etc.

And after he let go of all that crap, he came to peace and accepted who he was.
he felt he finally understood what it meant to be embraced and accepted in full
with "God's unconditional love" he never felt before in his life. He let go,
became new and started all over as his real self, and forgave anything in his
past that was false and not his true being.

After coming out to his wife, family and friends,
He decided on his own to go through the counseling to reassign his gender.
All of that came from him, not from me or anything else around him that
all told him the opposite. I even urged him to finish the whole process first,
get used to his new life BEFORE making irreversible decisions. He already
knew what he wanted, and went through the professional counseling required
before any chemical or medical procedures. but he went ahead and started
on cosmetic changes he was absolutely thrilled about. So that was all him/her.

I thought we were just discussing how to forgive the misteachings and focus
on the real love and forgiveness that Christianity means; we did talk about
spiritual gender and gender roles in that context, not the other way around.
Whatever it was that helped him let go of guilt fear resentment and unforgiveness
about Christians and judgment, it was not "conversion therapy" to try to make
him something he wasn't. it was the opposite, trying to get away from
programming that told him the opposite and causing him distress and resentment.

Inevitable, I think there is something wrong with me using the term of
therapy if it sounds like "imposing on the outside".

It's like when people argue that Buddhism is of the devil,
based on what their church pastor told them,
but they find out the teachings within Buddhism are NOT
what they were told. And they find it is consistent
with their Christian beliefs and not against them at all,
but actually help them with their beliefs.

Whatever this therapy that works is NOT the conversion/coercive crap.
Something else is going on with effective healing therapy
that is NOT those false, harmful, abusive things
that are indeed malpractice and should be stopped, I agree.

Sorry this isn't clear.

It's easier to describe what it is NOT
* it is NOT faith healing, praying to change to X Y Z, trying to become A B C, etc.
* it is NOT anyone or anything from the outside telling someone, making or forcing
anyone to become something they are not
* it is NOT people faking it to make it, trying to go along with what they are supposed to do to become what anyone or anything else expects them to be which is clearly unnatural or forced
I could list 10 million things it is not, and that is easier than describing what it is
because the process is different for each person.

It is led by THEM not anyone or anything telling them the opposite
of what is true, natural and right for THEM. So the spiritual
therapy is the OPPOSITE of the negative things you think I am saying.

I agree with you [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] that all those negative
approaches are harmful, wrongful, abusive and disastrous.

It is clear to me we are not talking about the same thing
and that is why you are opposed. I oppose the same things you do.

I apologize in failing to clarify and communicate
so you can see we agree the same dangerous practices need to be stopped.
I totally agree!

Hi [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION] and [MENTION=46353]GreenBean[/MENTION]
Thanks for developing a very interesting and diverse thread with different angles.

1. Healing still applies, WITHOUT Homosexuality being a "disease or mental illness."

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]
What on earth is unwell or in need of healing about homosexuality? I think the best cure is for people to stop insisting there is something wrong with gay people, you can't explain thatthere is any condition that even needs healing based on sexual orientation.

Factoring in the studies, PROCESS, and results of effective natural healing
DOES change the statistical data and medical findings, and the resulting conclusions.

So Inevitable, it can make the difference between drawing a false or true conclusion.

Natural healing is rather meaningless to me. Not sure that phrase even has a meaning.

From what you have explained thus far, "natural healing" is hocuspocus. I recall asking you several times what natural healing was and why it should be regarded as anything only to be ignored.

What on earth does this have to do with the thread?

So it's NOT "faith healing" and it doesn't depend on homosexuality being a "disease."

So explain to me then why you feel it's so important to push your faith healing on the thread about homosexuality and frankly any thread regarding this topic. It's beginning to become insulting. Are you posting this as a cure for homosexuality?f

BTW I'm glad to know you are Christian, if that helps you understand there is a bigger process going on. I believe science can prove the healing of other mental illness such as schizophrenia, using the same methods, and resolve a lot of these issues at the same time. That's why I see a connection. How can you research one without affecting all applications.

The mind/body follow a natural healing process that works for all people (if something is not forgiven or resolved in the past, it can build up negative memories and emotions and block the mind/body from the natural flow of life's healing energy and process; and if the blocked memory or conflict is removed by forgiveness, this unblocks that natural energy flow so the mind/body can heal as they are designed).

Conditions DON't have to be an "illness, disease or disorder" to be healed this way.

This is exactly what I meant when I said it's beginning to be insulting. Why do you think homosexuality is a condition or that people need to be healed from it?

RE: "what needs to be healed"
"what needs to be healed" is different for each person
the PERSON choses their OWN focus of what is bothering them, not "homosexuality" as the focus.
"what needs to be healed"
can be about overcoming:
guilt
fear
anxiety/stress
grief/distress
control issues
abuse
injustice
unforgiveness
betrayal
deception
loss/separation
denial
depression
anger/rage
bullying
conflicting relations
blame
hate/resentment
negatively judging oneself or others
self hatred/destruction
communication problems
mommy issues
daddy issues
political conflicts
religious conflicts
relationship abuse
addiction
obsession
inadequacy/insecurity/low esteem
lack of peace/satisfaction/happiness/joy
etc.

The same process for healing of any negative thoughts, feelings, perceptions, memories, relationships
ACCORDING TO THE PERSON (ie what THEY are unhappy/dissatisifed about and want to see changed)
involves FORGIVING the negative things in order to facilitate the natural healing and resolution process

Whatever feels NEGATIVE is forgiven in order to fill that space with something POSITIVE

The FOCUS is finding "what is UNFORGIVEN or unresolved" and causing the negative feelings/reactions attached,
FORGIVING that cause and anything related to it, especially forgiving conflicts that cannot be resolved or changed,
so the person can be HEALED of that negativity and all its causes and effects.

 

[kaz]

So you'd be good with government banning all marriages? Yes or no?

No. Government should not have a function called marriage. They have no power to "ban" what citizens do between themselves. Not recognizing something is not "banning" it. Government should treat all it's citizens the same. Government marriage is discriminatory whether or not gays can get in on the discrimination or not.

That was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.

You're confusing two disparate issues.

Issue one is can gays get married by a religious institution. The answer to that question is already yes and always has been yes. Government does not stop anyone from having a marriage ceremony or just claiming to be married, because getting married in the religious sense is merely a non-binding agreement between two people that may or may not have been witnessed. Well non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage.

The second issue is the one of the legal matter for the civil union of two people who have agreed to enter a marriage contract, aka. marriage licence.

Legal marriage definition:

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.

A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other. If you do this, I will do that. If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.

A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim. That is just a government program.

Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere. While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.

 

[emilynghiem]

I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.

A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other. If you do this, I will do that. If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.

A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim. That is just a government program.

Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere. While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.

Dear Kaz: Especially for something as personal (and/or spiritual) as marriage,
clearly the govt has no business mandating/regulating it to the point of imposing on religious or nonreligious beliefs.

The people of a state or church would have to agree among themselves what policies on marriage and laws that do not infringe on their beliefs or those of others in that state/church, in order not to impose on people against their beliefs.

So if we had a consensus on laws/marriage first,
we would not protest govt policy, or a church policy, but those policies
WOULD reflect the views, beliefs and consent of the people affected and represented.

The PROBLEM is that when different views of people are under one group
(whether state govt or church, etc).

So either they need to agree on a policy if that is the umbrella for all that group,
or agree to SEPARATE groups under separate policies.

Marriage is going to bring up people's personal beliefs and issues
because it does concern personal relations and/or spiritual/religious beliefs.

So the laws have to be worded carefully or neutral
and the people they apply to must agree on interpretation and wording
so there is no such religious, personal or political conflict over beliefs
either being imposed or infringed upon.

As long as marriage crosses over between church and state,
you either have to have consensus so there is no unresolved conflict,
or agree to separate.

If there is not a consensus, dissenters who feel their beliefs are infringed upon
are suffering from unequal treatment and discrimination by creed or belief.

So consensus is required, even on how to separate jurisdiction and/or write laws
to be neutral and not imposing beliefs, where conflicting beliefs cannot be resolved.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Glad you asked that. Genes or gene expression.

Your genes have no understanding of if procreation is possible. Thanks for pointing that out. That should let you know its hardwired into humans.

Actually, a number of different animals know when procreation is possible, humans among them. The human body, like many animals, emits signals when women are fertile, and men can detect them.

Men Can Smell Fertility, Study Says - ABC News

I actually knew the exact time when my ex wife became pregnant. She never believed me, and I know you won't, but I did. I also knew an ex girlfriend was lying to me when she told me she was pregnant.

The funny thing is, even though I knew when to procreate, it never once stopped from having sex, because, ultimately, we aren't programmed to procreate. Despite Dawkins claims to the contrary, genes do not control behavior in any species on Earth.

So, even though we are quite capable of knowing when to procreate.

Some animals and very few people can tell when the optimum time is to procreate. That has nothing to do with the genes the express this urge. You may be able to sense it but most people cant or have lost the ability to recognize it. It wont stop you from having sex because your genes have instilled that urge to procreate regardless of it being the best time or not. Like most procreation its a hit or miss proposition. I thought you said on another thread you were gay? Maybe I got you mixed up with someone else?

Genes do not control behavior, therefore my genes have not given me an urge to procreate even when procreation s impossible.

Feel free to keep digging yourself a nice, deep, hole.
As for my sexual preferences, that is my business, not yours. Perhaps you should learn to stop jumping into people's business.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Something that always occurs to me about this subject is 'who's it benefitting?' Why ask the question in the first place? If it's genetic, then homosexuals and heterosexuals are blameless right? If it's a choice then they're both culpable. But who's that benefit? All the people against homosexuals probably WANT it to not be genetic since if it is then they can't condemn homosexuals for being homosexual - God made them that way. If it's a choice, they can. But until we have a scientificly sound answer one way or the other debating it is pointless. Might go wither way, we simply don't have adequate evidence yet to make a conclusion.

There is adequate evidence to make a conclusion, it is not genetic. There is actually conclusive proof of that, but many prefer to ignore it, most of them on are people who support gays. What I want to know is why are they afraid of the science.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is a really lame idea - to not want the government to have a say, because they muck stuff up.

The Government has failed us before, so we don't need them? Do you refuse legal council for a lawsuit, because lawyers are crooked?

Not if you have any sense.

History has shown that government tends to fuck most things up when it comes to social affairs, not the same for lawyers and law. Your comparison is idiotic.

Nonsense. The main reason govco is in the marriage business is because the marriage license is a legally binding contract between two individuals, thus a matter of law, thus a matter for lawyers should there be an issue with the contract.

Do you want to end contractual law entirely, or just the ones between two people.

Wrong, the main reason the government is in the marriage business is so they can tell people they can't get married.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you'd be good with government banning all marriages? Yes or no?

No. Government should not have a function called marriage. They have no power to "ban" what citizens do between themselves. Not recognizing something is not "banning" it. Government should treat all it's citizens the same. Government marriage is discriminatory whether or not gays can get in on the discrimination or not.

That was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.

You're confusing two disparate issues.

Issue one is can gays get married by a religious institution. The answer to that question is already yes and always has been yes. Government does not stop anyone from having a marriage ceremony or just claiming to be married, because getting married in the religious sense is merely a non-binding agreement between two people that may or may not have been witnessed. Well non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage.

The second issue is the one of the legal matter for the civil union of two people who have agreed to enter a marriage contract, aka. marriage licence.

Legal marriage definition:

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

ou realy don't know how little you know.

In Texas you can get married by introducing someone as your wife, or vice versa. This imposes a binding contract on the two people which is witnessed by the person you say it to. This all happens without getting a marriage license from the government in advance.

 

[emilynghiem]

Genes do not control behavior, therefore my genes have not given me an urge to procreate even when procreation s impossible.

Feel free to keep digging yourself a nice, deep, hole.
As for my sexual preferences, that is my business, not yours. Perhaps you should learn to stop jumping into people's business.

I would say the "spiritual drive/element in life"
oversees BOTH the manifestation of genetic patterns
AND the person's body/mind/spirit
AND physically the parents we are born to and places/environments we live in
AND the person's relationships with others in life
so that it oversees the interactions and behaviors

If you focus on the spiritual level of life, drive, purpose and will/decisions/choices
then there is no need for conflict between
how much of this manifested as physical, genetic, psychological etc.

Those are still not the root causes
but some of these are manifestations after the fact.

You can argue day and night, which came first
did the chicken cause the egg
or did the egg cause the chicken.

by looking at it spiritually
both the chicken and egg are part of the same process in life.

They happen "in conjunction"
Whether A or B have a causal relationship or correlation

The issue with homosexuality is whether something
"needs to change or not"
So look at the whole process of what can or cannot change.
We don't need to agree what came from where
as long as the things that are "causing problems" can be changed
and the things that "cannot change" no longer cause problems.

We don't have to agree on everything, since every situation
is different. We may never agree on the chicken/egg scenario,
but we can agree how to fix a problem with the process
of chicken laying eggs, or eggs hatching into chickens,
regardless how we see this process.

What needs to change to resolve a conflict? --> Agree what to change in each case
What cannot change --> Agree to respect those differences, and focus on what can be resolved

If something (like orientation, behavior, BELIEFS) CANNOT be changed
but we THINK they can be or should be and keep pushing to change them,
then we need to change perceptions to resolve the conflict:
* either something we thought could change cannot
* or something can change we thought could not
and the issue is more about perceptions changing, not necessarily the events themselves

If we forgive differences in beliefs that cannot change
and focus on perceptions that can, that is most of the battle.
Once we agree how to work together from there,
then all the other information is much easier to
work through to resolve what can or cannot be resolved in real life.

Most of the conflicts are about perception of change
and FEAR that other people are trying to impose.
Address that first, and the rest follows naturally.

 

[emilynghiem]

Something that always occurs to me about this subject is 'who's it benefitting?' Why ask the question in the first place? If it's genetic, then homosexuals and heterosexuals are blameless right? If it's a choice then they're both culpable. But who's that benefit? All the people against homosexuals probably WANT it to not be genetic since if it is then they can't condemn homosexuals for being homosexual - God made them that way. If it's a choice, they can. But until we have a scientificly sound answer one way or the other debating it is pointless. Might go wither way, we simply don't have adequate evidence yet to make a conclusion.

There is adequate evidence to make a conclusion, it is not genetic. There is actually conclusive proof of that, but many prefer to ignore it, most of them on are people who support gays. What I want to know is why are they afraid of the science.

Maybe because they reject "Spiritual levels" of the soul
and "being born that way" based on FAITH

If the simple shortcut to argue in secular terms that
someone is naturally that way or "meant to be"
is by using genetics, then taking away this option
leaves them to explaining based on just pure
"FAITH" that life/God/nature "designed" that personality/soul
to come out that way (not by genetics but spiritually on that level).

So if people are secular and reject Christianity or religion,
this becomes a problem and is not a choice for some to explain using "FAITH."

They don't want to admit it is faith based.
If they can use science, they can say it's the genetics causing it.

To look at spiritual ways of life, causality and purpose
gets into religious areas they may be trying to avoid.

I have a friend who has a problem with forgiveness
because he associates it with Christianity and religions he rejects.
Unless he finds his own way of coming to peace with the "natural
process" in life, he keeps rejecting this just because he hates religious people preaching judgment,
while being hypocrites, which he cannot forgive.

Because his association with groups he can't stand,
even when forgiveness is offered or explained in other terms,
he still refuses to deal with that.

The opposition to the people/groups/side
is strong enough to trump any information, proof or science
"that appears to help the other side"

Similar to the abortion issue, and ignoring anything
that is being pushed or used by the "opposing side"

The political/religious opposition is stronger
and people will follow that motivation first,
and only approve of information that does not threaten them
or appear to help the other side.

 

[emilynghiem]

The APA lists no known causes for homosexual, thoughthere are some hypotheses. What do you think and why?

Gay people are born that way. Bi sexual people or people who could possibly go both ways are born that way and so are people who are completely hetero. A complete hetero knows they were born straight. A complete homo knows they were born that way. It's the bi sexuals that are confused. They think everyone thinks the way they do.

My question, "Is religion a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?"

Because people are certainly not born religious.

I believe people are spiritually born to associate with people of certain groups.
So we can have certain relationships and interactions in life
for our spiritual growth, as individuals and collectively as society/humanity.

I have a friend born into a Catholic family who was unhappy there
and did not find God/Holy Spirit until she became Muslim.
She still thinks Christians are teaching Jesus wrong,
while Christians fault Jews/Muslims who deny Jesus
and can reconcile with Jews/Muslims who accept Jesus and work with Christianity.

I have a friend born into a Muslim family
and considers himself to be
Muslim/Buddhist/Christian and also Pagan

My parents were traditional Vietnamese Buddhists
and I am some nontraditional Constitutionalist
who believes politically in isonomy
and in the spirit of Christ Jesus as "Restorative Justice" fulfilling the
laws in Buddhism, Christianity and the Constitution (including all religions)
as well as Universal Salvation including people of all
views, tribes, nations, groups, regardless of beliefs or not.

So as for choice/birth
I believe I was spiritually meant to reach this state of
working with people and groups of all faiths,
I will always favor the SECULAR approach to language using natural laws,
rational and personal understanding in making decisions by free will
and educated choice (which is part of my social and environmental
upbringing and influence)
but that even those physical factors of influence
were SPIRITUALLY DETERMINED before birth.
My parents were DESTINED to come to America
so I would be born in Houston, attend the schools I did
and have the teachers I had, so I would "come out this way at the end."

That part was not something I chose
by my parents would say they "chose to come to America'
when I see it as determined to happen.

As for choice, when I speak with Christians, I "choose" terms
that communicate effectively which means using the Bible.
This was NOT my first choice to learn, but it works so I use it.
Some things are "meant" to be said, taught, understood and established
using that language and laws to UNITE people so it is "meant to be."
Not my choice.

but in practice it seems like
I "choose" secular terms to speak with secular thinkers
and Christian terms for Christians and Buddhist
terms for Buddhists, etc.

All these are meant to be. I did not make up those languages,
and did not decide who responds to which ones.

So part is "meant to be" by spirit (not always by birth but may manifest later)
and some manifest as choices in life, where these can be seen as
"meant to be chosen" because they achieve the effective result
that works for the people.

 

[kaz]

I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.

A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other. If you do this, I will do that. If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.

A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim. That is just a government program.

Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere. While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.

Dear Kaz: Especially for something as personal (and/or spiritual) as marriage,
clearly the govt has no business mandating/regulating it to the point of imposing on religious or nonreligious beliefs.

The people of a state or church would have to agree among themselves what policies on marriage and laws that do not infringe on their beliefs or those of others in that state/church, in order not to impose on people against their beliefs.

So if we had a consensus on laws/marriage first,
we would not protest govt policy, or a church policy, but those policies
WOULD reflect the views, beliefs and consent of the people affected and represented.

The PROBLEM is that when different views of people are under one group
(whether state govt or church, etc).

So either they need to agree on a policy if that is the umbrella for all that group,
or agree to SEPARATE groups under separate policies.

Marriage is going to bring up people's personal beliefs and issues
because it does concern personal relations and/or spiritual/religious beliefs.

So the laws have to be worded carefully or neutral
and the people they apply to must agree on interpretation and wording
so there is no such religious, personal or political conflict over beliefs
either being imposed or infringed upon.

As long as marriage crosses over between church and state,
you either have to have consensus so there is no unresolved conflict,
or agree to separate.

If there is not a consensus, dissenters who feel their beliefs are infringed upon
are suffering from unequal treatment and discrimination by creed or belief.

So consensus is required, even on how to separate jurisdiction and/or write laws
to be neutral and not imposing beliefs, where conflicting beliefs cannot be resolved.

You're begging the question. That's a logical fallacy where you assume the truth of your own position.

I am saying government doesn't need to be involved in marriage at all. Your whole argument starts with the assumption they do. No, they don't. There is no reason a Catholic marriage has to be the same as a Jewish marriage as a civil marriage, and there is no reason government needs any laws regulating marriage. If people want to agree to a contract, they can do that.

And furthermore, government has no business treating any citizen differently than another.

If we did this, then government homosexual, heterosexual, bigamist or any other marriage discussion would be irrelevant in politics. It would be between people, their church or whatever other institution they want it to be between.

Government marriage solves nothing and it creates endless problems. Like having an idiotic public debate about whether gays should have government marriage. Eliminate the death tax, make taxes flat, make paternity rights based on biology and not paper and reform laws like living will type decisions and the need for government marriage is gone and all citizens are treated equally by the government.

 

[RKMBrown]

No. Government should not have a function called marriage. They have no power to "ban" what citizens do between themselves. Not recognizing something is not "banning" it. Government should treat all it's citizens the same. Government marriage is discriminatory whether or not gays can get in on the discrimination or not.

That was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.

You're confusing two disparate issues.

Issue one is can gays get married by a religious institution. The answer to that question is already yes and always has been yes. Government does not stop anyone from having a marriage ceremony or just claiming to be married, because getting married in the religious sense is merely a non-binding agreement between two people that may or may not have been witnessed. Well non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage.

The second issue is the one of the legal matter for the civil union of two people who have agreed to enter a marriage contract, aka. marriage licence.

Legal marriage definition:

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

ou realy don't know how little you know.

In Texas you can get married by introducing someone as your wife, or vice versa. This imposes a binding contract on the two people which is witnessed by the person you say it to. This all happens without getting a marriage license from the government in advance.

Yeah cause when I said above, non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage. I really meant there is no such thing as common-law marriage.



Yes I am aware that I live in a common-law marriage state.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're confusing two disparate issues.

Issue one is can gays get married by a religious institution. The answer to that question is already yes and always has been yes. Government does not stop anyone from having a marriage ceremony or just claiming to be married, because getting married in the religious sense is merely a non-binding agreement between two people that may or may not have been witnessed. Well non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage.

The second issue is the one of the legal matter for the civil union of two people who have agreed to enter a marriage contract, aka. marriage licence.

Legal marriage definition:

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

ou realy don't know how little you know.

In Texas you can get married by introducing someone as your wife, or vice versa. This imposes a binding contract on the two people which is witnessed by the person you say it to. This all happens without getting a marriage license from the government in advance.

Yeah cause when I said above, non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage. I really meant there is no such thing as common-law marriage.



Yes I am aware that I live in a common-law marriage state.

My apologies, I missed that.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, I didn't mean that.
I agree with you that if people can agree to keep it out of govt altogether that is best.
But even that is not up to me to decide.

It is up to the people, not just to me, like you said.

It is NOT me imposing my views or this would already be in mediation
before making any more policies or reforms/interpretations of current policies.

I recognize already there are people who "cannot separate church and state"
and because of the CURRENT situation where govt is already involved,
then OF COURSE govt is involved to get it back out of govt.

Sorry this wasn't clear!

I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.

A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other. If you do this, I will do that. If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.

A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim. That is just a government program.

Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere. While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.

Dear Kaz: Especially for something as personal (and/or spiritual) as marriage,
clearly the govt has no business mandating/regulating it to the point of imposing on religious or nonreligious beliefs.

The people of a state or church would have to agree among themselves what policies on marriage and laws that do not infringe on their beliefs or those of others in that state/church, in order not to impose on people against their beliefs.

So if we had a consensus on laws/marriage first,
we would not protest govt policy, or a church policy, but those policies
WOULD reflect the views, beliefs and consent of the people affected and represented.

The PROBLEM is that when different views of people are under one group
(whether state govt or church, etc).

So either they need to agree on a policy if that is the umbrella for all that group,
or agree to SEPARATE groups under separate policies.

Marriage is going to bring up people's personal beliefs and issues
because it does concern personal relations and/or spiritual/religious beliefs.

So the laws have to be worded carefully or neutral
and the people they apply to must agree on interpretation and wording
so there is no such religious, personal or political conflict over beliefs
either being imposed or infringed upon.

As long as marriage crosses over between church and state,
you either have to have consensus so there is no unresolved conflict,
or agree to separate.

If there is not a consensus, dissenters who feel their beliefs are infringed upon
are suffering from unequal treatment and discrimination by creed or belief.

So consensus is required, even on how to separate jurisdiction and/or write laws
to be neutral and not imposing beliefs, where conflicting beliefs cannot be resolved.

You're begging the question. That's a logical fallacy where you assume the truth of your own position.

I am saying government doesn't need to be involved in marriage at all. Your whole argument starts with the assumption they do. No, they don't. There is no reason a Catholic marriage has to be the same as a Jewish marriage as a civil marriage, and there is no reason government needs any laws regulating marriage. If people want to agree to a contract, they can do that.

And furthermore, government has no business treating any citizen differently than another.

If we did this, then government homosexual, heterosexual, bigamist or any other marriage discussion would be irrelevant in politics. It would be between people, their church or whatever other institution they want it to be between.

Government marriage solves nothing and it creates endless problems. Like having an idiotic public debate about whether gays should have government marriage. Eliminate the death tax, make taxes flat, make paternity rights based on biology and not paper and reform laws like living will type decisions and the need for government marriage is gone and all citizens are treated equally by the government.

 

[RKMBrown]

No. Government should not have a function called marriage. They have no power to "ban" what citizens do between themselves. Not recognizing something is not "banning" it. Government should treat all it's citizens the same. Government marriage is discriminatory whether or not gays can get in on the discrimination or not.

That was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.

You're confusing two disparate issues.

Issue one is can gays get married by a religious institution. The answer to that question is already yes and always has been yes. Government does not stop anyone from having a marriage ceremony or just claiming to be married, because getting married in the religious sense is merely a non-binding agreement between two people that may or may not have been witnessed. Well non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage.

The second issue is the one of the legal matter for the civil union of two people who have agreed to enter a marriage contract, aka. marriage licence.

Legal marriage definition:

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

Marriage | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

I know they use the term contract, but as I pointed out it's bogus.

A contract between two parties is something they work out between each other. If you do this, I will do that. If I quit my job and raise your kids and you leave me for your secretary you bastard I want half your shit.

A contract is not something that government defines, implements and changes at it's own whim. That is just a government program.

Arguing with a libertarian that life is unbearable because someone wants things from government and government is being oppressive because they don't give it to them isn't going to ever get you anywhere. While as a Republican you may still want government, and lots of it, I would think that would bother you less than what liberals want.

You are still not listening. Without governance of some kind, there is no means to enforce and/or arbitrate a contract between two or more individuals. Without some means to enforce contracts you could only rely on a man's word as his bond. The paper of a contract would be worthless without a body to provide enforcement.

Having a body that enforces contracts without having to have people self enforce agreements is one of the corner stones of civilization since we left the trees.

 

[emilynghiem]

If god is perfect, why didn't he ONLY give it to gays and drug users? Is god a fuck up?

[MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]

If bad things only happened to people we thought deserved it,
we would just let bad things happen, trusting "justice" to take care of things
"after the fact."

Instead humanity is meant to learn to PREVENT bad things from happening.
Until it affects people we KNOW did not deserve to suffer,
sometimes we don't do enough to correct problems.

But when we see innocents suffer and die, and know there was injustice,
then by conscience we study what went wrong and seek to correct/prevent the causes.

If God's will represent achieving lasting good will, good faith relations,
peace and justice in a harmonious society,
then learning to prevent injustice is clearly necessary
and the bad consequences are part of that learning curve by
experience, by trial and error, studying problems of the past
and what caused bad outcomes in order to make better decisions in the future.

All part of how the human conscience works by nature.

 

[RKMBrown]

ou realy don't know how little you know.

In Texas you can get married by introducing someone as your wife, or vice versa. This imposes a binding contract on the two people which is witnessed by the person you say it to. This all happens without getting a marriage license from the government in advance.

Yeah cause when I said above, non-binding unless the state you are in has common-law marriage. I really meant there is no such thing as common-law marriage.



Yes I am aware that I live in a common-law marriage state.

My apologies, I missed that.

It's ok I did sort of jimmy that in.

I agree with the point that in common law states a marriage license / contract is an unnecessary step as it's there by default. I heard the other day that Texas was looking at doing the same for civil unions.

IMO the government involvement should only be in arbitrating asset split ups when the marriage/union or common law marriage/union is dissolved.

I'd like to see govco get out of assigning special privileges and benefits to marriages. IMO that on face is a slap in the face to single people. Does not seem right that we essentially legislate that single people are lessor citizens wrt taxes, access benefits, etc.

 

[emilynghiem]

If Americans really believed the jesus stories were real we would be a christian nation. There would be no seperation of church and state. Fact is our forefathers were smart enough to know to keep the corrupt churches/religions away from our government/democracy/freedom/nation/fill in the blank.

Most supposed christians don't even take the bible literally.

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

1. The concept of the secular govt and secular laws of the gentiles
IS in the Bible/Christianity also. It does NOT require rejecting Christianity.

This is natural law, [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]

* The people under religious laws of the church (Jews, Christians, Muslims)
are under that means of authority and address each other using THOSE laws.

* the people under SECULAR laws of science, civil laws, psychology/sociology, etc.
use THOSE laws to address each other in context/language they understand

BOTH folds are part of the same flock
These are NOT in conflict but supposed to be "in harmony"
Natural laws and religious laws are all supposed to reflect Universal truths for all humanity,
just in different forms/languages/contexts that have separate jurisdiction.
This is to help organize people by affiliation so all people can be represented
either directly or indirectly through the body or system they relate to.

2. What Jesus means is Justice.
"Equal Justice Under Law" is on the Supreme Court building
So this is a secular concept also.

You cannot get away from the concept or authority of "Justice"
* whether you use scriptural/Christian terms for Jesus or Justice with Mercy,
* or you use secular laws about Peace and Justice, Restorative Justice
* or Constitutional terms of "Equal Justice or Protection of the Laws"
(see also Houston Police Logo that even states "Order through Law, Justice with Mercy")
These are universal concepts of Law and Justice for Peace.

3. Separation of church and state
means to impose neither authority over the other

It does NOT mean to "reject one for the other"
In fact, we would NOT have to "reject one for the other"
if we quit IMPOSING one on the other in the first place!

So separate and this rejection/conflict doesn't have to happen.
THAT is the point.