Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am well aware of the fact that 100% of identical twins do not share the same sexual orientation. I am also aware of the fact that no, specific "gay gene" has been identified. None of that means that there is no genetic component. And as I have said many times, regardless of the genetic/ biological factor, to say that it is a choice is ridiculous. Again...google epigeneticsGoogle identical twins.yes most "homosexuals" were born to heterosexuals except of course for those who were born to homosexuals using the same methods that heterosexuals sometimes use when they can't have children in the "normal way".and they will most likely be heterosexual.The point is that for children to have a trait related to genetics , it is not necessary for the parents to have those traits. Google epigenetic and recessive genesHomosexuals don't breed, hence genetic homosexuality is impossible.
Google "logic"I am well aware of the fact that 100% of identical twins do not share the same sexual orientation. I am also aware of the fact that no, specific "gay gene" has been identified. None of that means that there is no genetic component. And as I have said many times, regardless of the genetic/ biological factor, to say that it is a choice is ridiculous. Again...google epigeneticsGoogle identical twins.yes most "homosexuals" were born to heterosexuals except of course for those who were born to homosexuals using the same methods that heterosexuals sometimes use when they can't have children in the "normal way".and they will most likely be heterosexual.The point is that for children to have a trait related to genetics , it is not necessary for the parents to have those traits. Google epigenetic and recessive genesHomosexuals don't breed, hence genetic homosexuality is impossible.
Not saying it is simply about choice. The environment a child is raised in, experiences exposed to, people who have had influence all effect a persons life style.It has become abundantly clear to me that the people who push the "gay is a choice " meme are consistently the same people who - shall we say - are less than supportive of gay rights.
They are also the same people who can be described as incurious are not inclined to actually take an in depth look at the complexity of human sexuality and all of the factors and influences that might contribute to sexual orientation. Rather, they cling to a anti-intellectual, concreate way of thinking and insist that in the absence of a "gay gene" it must be a choice.
Why is that? My belief is that by making it a choice -whether of not they actually believe that- they are de-legitimizing homosexuality and making it something frivolous that they can blame gay people for, and thus justify robbing them of the right to be fully equal members of society.
Anyone care to weigh in on that?
Actually, I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't need to prove anything. Neither do gay people. Gay rights have advanced nicely and will continue to do so without proving a genetic link. The issue has been inconsequential from a legal standpoint. The public,- which as you know - has been increasingly supportive of gay rights does not seem to care much either.Google "logic"I am well aware of the fact that 100% of identical twins do not share the same sexual orientation. I am also aware of the fact that no, specific "gay gene" has been identified. None of that means that there is no genetic component. And as I have said many times, regardless of the genetic/ biological factor, to say that it is a choice is ridiculous. Again...google epigeneticsGoogle identical twins.yes most "homosexuals" were born to heterosexuals except of course for those who were born to homosexuals using the same methods that heterosexuals sometimes use when they can't have children in the "normal way".and they will most likely be heterosexual.The point is that for children to have a trait related to genetics , it is not necessary for the parents to have those traits. Google epigenetic and recessive genesHomosexuals don't breed, hence genetic homosexuality is impossible.
But, I guess I can understand wanting to believe something you can't prove. I believe in God.
As I recall, you don't support gay rights. Correct? In which case that response fits nicely with my theory ......in your mind there is a degree of choice.Not saying it is simply about choice. The environment a child is raised in, experiences exposed to, people who have had influence all effect a persons life style.It has become abundantly clear to me that the people who push the "gay is a choice " meme are consistently the same people who - shall we say - are less than supportive of gay rights.
They are also the same people who can be described as incurious are not inclined to actually take an in depth look at the complexity of human sexuality and all of the factors and influences that might contribute to sexual orientation. Rather, they cling to a anti-intellectual, concreate way of thinking and insist that in the absence of a "gay gene" it must be a choice.
Why is that? My belief is that by making it a choice -whether of not they actually believe that- they are de-legitimizing homosexuality and making it something frivolous that they can blame gay people for, and thus justify robbing them of the right to be fully equal members of society.
Anyone care to weigh in on that?
Dear ChrisLAnd anyone who doesn't get that is unamericanBeing gay straight or bi is both genetic and sometimes a choice. If you were born a bi sexual, you could go either way and it is a choice. But if you were born straight or totally gay, its all genetic and you have no choice in the matter. Imagine boss sucking a dick. Is it a choice for him? Then he's bi. If he thinks being gay is a choice, then that is true for boss.Not really a very good explanation for denying people their happiness. Because YOU don't like their reasons? Maybe if you didn't think of only yourself . . .
He needs to stop thinking of only himself and he has to stop thinking everything thinks like he does. We are all different. On a scale of 1-10 10 being the gayest Boss is a 2. Not very gay but gets hard at the thought of fucking other guys.
I don't know what causes a person to be gay. That is still a mystery among the medical community too. Like you said, in some instances it just may be a choice and in others it may not be. It all depends I suppose, but it doesn't really matter if it's a choice or not IMO. If that is what a person wants to do with a consenting adult and isn't hurting anyone else, then it really doesn't and shouldn't matter to all the busy bodies who want to insinuate themselves into other people's private lives.
I don't know if I would go THAT far. I prefer to call them busybodies.I don't know why gay people cause them such anxiety. Is it insecurity or something? Not sure.
1. Some ppl are called to offer Christian help and healing to anyone who is not Christian. And if such ppl refuse and reject them, they are supposed to leave them alone, even to the point where in some cases they shouldn't interact at all.
In such cases why not agree not to impose, either way; if ppl have such a disagreement in beliefs, such as Hindus and Muslims rejecting each other, then respect their differences and allow them the freedom not to be forced into relations they don't both agree to. Why judge anyone for beliefs they have, either about Christianity or LGBT issues. Keep beliefs in private, and where they cross over into public sectors such as marriage or bathroom policies, then either reach a consensus by free choice what policies to implement, or revise them to be gender neutral, or remove govt altogether and make marriage, benefits, and schools private if that's the way ppl in a state agree to set it up equally .
2. Some ppl just don't believe in gay marriage. Just like Vegans who don't eat meat. Jehovahs Witnesses who don't do blood procedures, or Muslims who refrain from pork. This issue just happens to cross the line with public and private, because marriage already crossed that line mixing govt with private affairs. Had marriage been separated before this, and kept fully private as many Constitutionalists have long argued for, then of course this issue would have stayed a private choice where it belongs.
The problem has always been that marriage and social benefits were managed through federal govt that is Constitutionally limited from such intrusions into personal matters but this was not being enforced. It was already inconsistent by crossing lines between church and state.
Instead of pulling marriage OUT so everyone can decide on their own, ppl went the wrong direction using govt to Further endorse and impose policies which is backwards.
ChrisL that would be about as logical as Christians Muslims Polygamists etc complaining that marriage laws exclude their rights and beliefs so that govt endorses Muslim marriage, Polygamist Marriage, Christian marriage etc. No, don't endorse any type of marriage which is a personal choice similar to religion. Keep it neutral. Don't endorse any version over another or it's establishing a bias where the govt is supposed to remain neutral.
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.Dear ChrisLAnd anyone who doesn't get that is unamericanBeing gay straight or bi is both genetic and sometimes a choice. If you were born a bi sexual, you could go either way and it is a choice. But if you were born straight or totally gay, its all genetic and you have no choice in the matter. Imagine boss sucking a dick. Is it a choice for him? Then he's bi. If he thinks being gay is a choice, then that is true for boss.
He needs to stop thinking of only himself and he has to stop thinking everything thinks like he does. We are all different. On a scale of 1-10 10 being the gayest Boss is a 2. Not very gay but gets hard at the thought of fucking other guys.
I don't know what causes a person to be gay. That is still a mystery among the medical community too. Like you said, in some instances it just may be a choice and in others it may not be. It all depends I suppose, but it doesn't really matter if it's a choice or not IMO. If that is what a person wants to do with a consenting adult and isn't hurting anyone else, then it really doesn't and shouldn't matter to all the busy bodies who want to insinuate themselves into other people's private lives.
I don't know if I would go THAT far. I prefer to call them busybodies.
1. Some ppl are called to offer Christian help and healing to anyone who is not Christian. And if such ppl refuse and reject them, they are supposed to leave them alone, even to the point where in some cases they shouldn't interact at all.
In such cases why not agree not to impose, either way; if ppl have such a disagreement in beliefs, such as Hindus and Muslims rejecting each other, then respect their differences and allow them the freedom not to be forced into relations they don't both agree to. Why judge anyone for beliefs they have, either about Christianity or LGBT issues. Keep beliefs in private, and where they cross over into public sectors such as marriage or bathroom policies, then either reach a consensus by free choice what policies to implement, or revise them to be gender neutral, or remove govt altogether and make marriage, benefits, and schools private if that's the way ppl in a state agree to set it up equally .
2. Some ppl just don't believe in gay marriage. Just like Vegans who don't eat meat. Jehovahs Witnesses who don't do blood procedures, or Muslims who refrain from pork. This issue just happens to cross the line with public and private, because marriage already crossed that line mixing govt with private affairs. Had marriage been separated before this, and kept fully private as many Constitutionalists have long argued for, then of course this issue would have stayed a private choice where it belongs.
The problem has always been that marriage and social benefits were managed through federal govt that is Constitutionally limited from such intrusions into personal matters but this was not being enforced. It was already inconsistent by crossing lines between church and state.
Instead of pulling marriage OUT so everyone can decide on their own, ppl went the wrong direction using govt to Further endorse and impose policies which is backwards.
ChrisL that would be about as logical as Christians Muslims Polygamists etc complaining that marriage laws exclude their rights and beliefs so that govt endorses Muslim marriage, Polygamist Marriage, Christian marriage etc. No, don't endorse any type of marriage which is a personal choice similar to religion. Keep it neutral. Don't endorse any version over another or it's establishing a bias where the govt is supposed to remain neutral.
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.Dear ChrisLAnd anyone who doesn't get that is unamericanI don't know what causes a person to be gay. That is still a mystery among the medical community too. Like you said, in some instances it just may be a choice and in others it may not be. It all depends I suppose, but it doesn't really matter if it's a choice or not IMO. If that is what a person wants to do with a consenting adult and isn't hurting anyone else, then it really doesn't and shouldn't matter to all the busy bodies who want to insinuate themselves into other people's private lives.
I don't know if I would go THAT far. I prefer to call them busybodies.
1. Some ppl are called to offer Christian help and healing to anyone who is not Christian. And if such ppl refuse and reject them, they are supposed to leave them alone, even to the point where in some cases they shouldn't interact at all.
In such cases why not agree not to impose, either way; if ppl have such a disagreement in beliefs, such as Hindus and Muslims rejecting each other, then respect their differences and allow them the freedom not to be forced into relations they don't both agree to. Why judge anyone for beliefs they have, either about Christianity or LGBT issues. Keep beliefs in private, and where they cross over into public sectors such as marriage or bathroom policies, then either reach a consensus by free choice what policies to implement, or revise them to be gender neutral, or remove govt altogether and make marriage, benefits, and schools private if that's the way ppl in a state agree to set it up equally .
2. Some ppl just don't believe in gay marriage. Just like Vegans who don't eat meat. Jehovahs Witnesses who don't do blood procedures, or Muslims who refrain from pork. This issue just happens to cross the line with public and private, because marriage already crossed that line mixing govt with private affairs. Had marriage been separated before this, and kept fully private as many Constitutionalists have long argued for, then of course this issue would have stayed a private choice where it belongs.
The problem has always been that marriage and social benefits were managed through federal govt that is Constitutionally limited from such intrusions into personal matters but this was not being enforced. It was already inconsistent by crossing lines between church and state.
Instead of pulling marriage OUT so everyone can decide on their own, ppl went the wrong direction using govt to Further endorse and impose policies which is backwards.
ChrisL that would be about as logical as Christians Muslims Polygamists etc complaining that marriage laws exclude their rights and beliefs so that govt endorses Muslim marriage, Polygamist Marriage, Christian marriage etc. No, don't endorse any type of marriage which is a personal choice similar to religion. Keep it neutral. Don't endorse any version over another or it's establishing a bias where the govt is supposed to remain neutral.
I'm sure you didn't complain about government being in the "marriage business" before gays were allowed to marry.
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 Emily, Did you read the rules for this debate on genetics vs. choiceTruth 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.Dear ChrisLAnd anyone who doesn't get that is unamerican
I don't know if I would go THAT far. I prefer to call them busybodies.
1. Some ppl are called to offer Christian help and healing to anyone who is not Christian. And if such ppl refuse and reject them, they are supposed to leave them alone, even to the point where in some cases they shouldn't interact at all.
In such cases why not agree not to impose, either way; if ppl have such a disagreement in beliefs, such as Hindus and Muslims rejecting each other, then respect their differences and allow them the freedom not to be forced into relations they don't both agree to. Why judge anyone for beliefs they have, either about Christianity or LGBT issues. Keep beliefs in private, and where they cross over into public sectors such as marriage or bathroom policies, then either reach a consensus by free choice what policies to implement, or revise them to be gender neutral, or remove govt altogether and make marriage, benefits, and schools private if that's the way ppl in a state agree to set it up equally .
2. Some ppl just don't believe in gay marriage. Just like Vegans who don't eat meat. Jehovahs Witnesses who don't do blood procedures, or Muslims who refrain from pork. This issue just happens to cross the line with public and private, because marriage already crossed that line mixing govt with private affairs. Had marriage been separated before this, and kept fully private as many Constitutionalists have long argued for, then of course this issue would have stayed a private choice where it belongs.
The problem has always been that marriage and social benefits were managed through federal govt that is Constitutionally limited from such intrusions into personal matters but this was not being enforced. It was already inconsistent by crossing lines between church and state.
Instead of pulling marriage OUT so everyone can decide on their own, ppl went the wrong direction using govt to Further endorse and impose policies which is backwards.
ChrisL that would be about as logical as Christians Muslims Polygamists etc complaining that marriage laws exclude their rights and beliefs so that govt endorses Muslim marriage, Polygamist Marriage, Christian marriage etc. No, don't endorse any type of marriage which is a personal choice similar to religion. Keep it neutral. Don't endorse any version over another or it's establishing a bias where the govt is supposed to remain neutral.
I'm sure you didn't complain about government being in the "marriage business" before gays were allowed to marry.
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,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.Dear ChrisLAnd anyone who doesn't get that is unamerican
I don't know if I would go THAT far. I prefer to call them busybodies.
1. Some ppl are called to offer Christian help and healing to anyone who is not Christian. And if such ppl refuse and reject them, they are supposed to leave them alone, even to the point where in some cases they shouldn't interact at all.
In such cases why not agree not to impose, either way; if ppl have such a disagreement in beliefs, such as Hindus and Muslims rejecting each other, then respect their differences and allow them the freedom not to be forced into relations they don't both agree to. Why judge anyone for beliefs they have, either about Christianity or LGBT issues. Keep beliefs in private, and where they cross over into public sectors such as marriage or bathroom policies, then either reach a consensus by free choice what policies to implement, or revise them to be gender neutral, or remove govt altogether and make marriage, benefits, and schools private if that's the way ppl in a state agree to set it up equally .
2. Some ppl just don't believe in gay marriage. Just like Vegans who don't eat meat. Jehovahs Witnesses who don't do blood procedures, or Muslims who refrain from pork. This issue just happens to cross the line with public and private, because marriage already crossed that line mixing govt with private affairs. Had marriage been separated before this, and kept fully private as many Constitutionalists have long argued for, then of course this issue would have stayed a private choice where it belongs.
The problem has always been that marriage and social benefits were managed through federal govt that is Constitutionally limited from such intrusions into personal matters but this was not being enforced. It was already inconsistent by crossing lines between church and state.
Instead of pulling marriage OUT so everyone can decide on their own, ppl went the wrong direction using govt to Further endorse and impose policies which is backwards.
ChrisL that would be about as logical as Christians Muslims Polygamists etc complaining that marriage laws exclude their rights and beliefs so that govt endorses Muslim marriage, Polygamist Marriage, Christian marriage etc. No, don't endorse any type of marriage which is a personal choice similar to religion. Keep it neutral. Don't endorse any version over another or it's establishing a bias where the govt is supposed to remain neutral.
I'm sure you didn't complain about government being in the "marriage business" before gays were allowed to marry.
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 Progressivepatriot. Did you understand a word Emily said?Dear Emily, Did you read the rules for this debate on genetics vs. choiceTruth 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.Dear ChrisLI don't know if I would go THAT far. I prefer to call them busybodies.
1. Some ppl are called to offer Christian help and healing to anyone who is not Christian. And if such ppl refuse and reject them, they are supposed to leave them alone, even to the point where in some cases they shouldn't interact at all.
In such cases why not agree not to impose, either way; if ppl have such a disagreement in beliefs, such as Hindus and Muslims rejecting each other, then respect their differences and allow them the freedom not to be forced into relations they don't both agree to. Why judge anyone for beliefs they have, either about Christianity or LGBT issues. Keep beliefs in private, and where they cross over into public sectors such as marriage or bathroom policies, then either reach a consensus by free choice what policies to implement, or revise them to be gender neutral, or remove govt altogether and make marriage, benefits, and schools private if that's the way ppl in a state agree to set it up equally .
2. Some ppl just don't believe in gay marriage. Just like Vegans who don't eat meat. Jehovahs Witnesses who don't do blood procedures, or Muslims who refrain from pork. This issue just happens to cross the line with public and private, because marriage already crossed that line mixing govt with private affairs. Had marriage been separated before this, and kept fully private as many Constitutionalists have long argued for, then of course this issue would have stayed a private choice where it belongs.
The problem has always been that marriage and social benefits were managed through federal govt that is Constitutionally limited from such intrusions into personal matters but this was not being enforced. It was already inconsistent by crossing lines between church and state.
Instead of pulling marriage OUT so everyone can decide on their own, ppl went the wrong direction using govt to Further endorse and impose policies which is backwards.
ChrisL that would be about as logical as Christians Muslims Polygamists etc complaining that marriage laws exclude their rights and beliefs so that govt endorses Muslim marriage, Polygamist Marriage, Christian marriage etc. No, don't endorse any type of marriage which is a personal choice similar to religion. Keep it neutral. Don't endorse any version over another or it's establishing a bias where the govt is supposed to remain neutral.
I'm sure you didn't complain about government being in the "marriage business" before gays were allowed to marry.
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.
No Emily you don't really get to decide that because you don't like abortions and birth control that you are not going to help starving Africans that use birth control or get abortions. Of course that is what George W. Bush did but he was an asshole.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.Dear ChrisLAnd anyone who doesn't get that is unamerican
I don't know if I would go THAT far. I prefer to call them busybodies.
1. Some ppl are called to offer Christian help and healing to anyone who is not Christian. And if such ppl refuse and reject them, they are supposed to leave them alone, even to the point where in some cases they shouldn't interact at all.
In such cases why not agree not to impose, either way; if ppl have such a disagreement in beliefs, such as Hindus and Muslims rejecting each other, then respect their differences and allow them the freedom not to be forced into relations they don't both agree to. Why judge anyone for beliefs they have, either about Christianity or LGBT issues. Keep beliefs in private, and where they cross over into public sectors such as marriage or bathroom policies, then either reach a consensus by free choice what policies to implement, or revise them to be gender neutral, or remove govt altogether and make marriage, benefits, and schools private if that's the way ppl in a state agree to set it up equally .
2. Some ppl just don't believe in gay marriage. Just like Vegans who don't eat meat. Jehovahs Witnesses who don't do blood procedures, or Muslims who refrain from pork. This issue just happens to cross the line with public and private, because marriage already crossed that line mixing govt with private affairs. Had marriage been separated before this, and kept fully private as many Constitutionalists have long argued for, then of course this issue would have stayed a private choice where it belongs.
The problem has always been that marriage and social benefits were managed through federal govt that is Constitutionally limited from such intrusions into personal matters but this was not being enforced. It was already inconsistent by crossing lines between church and state.
Instead of pulling marriage OUT so everyone can decide on their own, ppl went the wrong direction using govt to Further endorse and impose policies which is backwards.
ChrisL that would be about as logical as Christians Muslims Polygamists etc complaining that marriage laws exclude their rights and beliefs so that govt endorses Muslim marriage, Polygamist Marriage, Christian marriage etc. No, don't endorse any type of marriage which is a personal choice similar to religion. Keep it neutral. Don't endorse any version over another or it's establishing a bias where the govt is supposed to remain neutral.
I'm sure you didn't complain about government being in the "marriage business" before gays were allowed to marry.
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.
And dear dear Emily. If we had to rely on charity a lot of needy people would suffer. Just look at how in the beginning Jesus lovers sent donations to Flint, MI but as the months pass CHARITY and CHURCHES have stopped giving, even though the need is still there. That's where government steps in.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.Dear ChrisLAnd anyone who doesn't get that is unamerican
I don't know if I would go THAT far. I prefer to call them busybodies.
1. Some ppl are called to offer Christian help and healing to anyone who is not Christian. And if such ppl refuse and reject them, they are supposed to leave them alone, even to the point where in some cases they shouldn't interact at all.
In such cases why not agree not to impose, either way; if ppl have such a disagreement in beliefs, such as Hindus and Muslims rejecting each other, then respect their differences and allow them the freedom not to be forced into relations they don't both agree to. Why judge anyone for beliefs they have, either about Christianity or LGBT issues. Keep beliefs in private, and where they cross over into public sectors such as marriage or bathroom policies, then either reach a consensus by free choice what policies to implement, or revise them to be gender neutral, or remove govt altogether and make marriage, benefits, and schools private if that's the way ppl in a state agree to set it up equally .
2. Some ppl just don't believe in gay marriage. Just like Vegans who don't eat meat. Jehovahs Witnesses who don't do blood procedures, or Muslims who refrain from pork. This issue just happens to cross the line with public and private, because marriage already crossed that line mixing govt with private affairs. Had marriage been separated before this, and kept fully private as many Constitutionalists have long argued for, then of course this issue would have stayed a private choice where it belongs.
The problem has always been that marriage and social benefits were managed through federal govt that is Constitutionally limited from such intrusions into personal matters but this was not being enforced. It was already inconsistent by crossing lines between church and state.
Instead of pulling marriage OUT so everyone can decide on their own, ppl went the wrong direction using govt to Further endorse and impose policies which is backwards.
ChrisL that would be about as logical as Christians Muslims Polygamists etc complaining that marriage laws exclude their rights and beliefs so that govt endorses Muslim marriage, Polygamist Marriage, Christian marriage etc. No, don't endorse any type of marriage which is a personal choice similar to religion. Keep it neutral. Don't endorse any version over another or it's establishing a bias where the govt is supposed to remain neutral.
I'm sure you didn't complain about government being in the "marriage business" before gays were allowed to marry.
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 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.Dear Progressivepatriot. Did you understand a word Emily said?Dear Emily, Did you read the rules for this debate on genetics vs. choiceTruth 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.Dear ChrisL
1. Some ppl are called to offer Christian help and healing to anyone who is not Christian. And if such ppl refuse and reject them, they are supposed to leave them alone, even to the point where in some cases they shouldn't interact at all.
In such cases why not agree not to impose, either way; if ppl have such a disagreement in beliefs, such as Hindus and Muslims rejecting each other, then respect their differences and allow them the freedom not to be forced into relations they don't both agree to. Why judge anyone for beliefs they have, either about Christianity or LGBT issues. Keep beliefs in private, and where they cross over into public sectors such as marriage or bathroom policies, then either reach a consensus by free choice what policies to implement, or revise them to be gender neutral, or remove govt altogether and make marriage, benefits, and schools private if that's the way ppl in a state agree to set it up equally .
2. Some ppl just don't believe in gay marriage. Just like Vegans who don't eat meat. Jehovahs Witnesses who don't do blood procedures, or Muslims who refrain from pork. This issue just happens to cross the line with public and private, because marriage already crossed that line mixing govt with private affairs. Had marriage been separated before this, and kept fully private as many Constitutionalists have long argued for, then of course this issue would have stayed a private choice where it belongs.
The problem has always been that marriage and social benefits were managed through federal govt that is Constitutionally limited from such intrusions into personal matters but this was not being enforced. It was already inconsistent by crossing lines between church and state.
Instead of pulling marriage OUT so everyone can decide on their own, ppl went the wrong direction using govt to Further endorse and impose policies which is backwards.
ChrisL that would be about as logical as Christians Muslims Polygamists etc complaining that marriage laws exclude their rights and beliefs so that govt endorses Muslim marriage, Polygamist Marriage, Christian marriage etc. No, don't endorse any type of marriage which is a personal choice similar to religion. Keep it neutral. Don't endorse any version over another or it's establishing a bias where the govt is supposed to remain neutral.
I'm sure you didn't complain about government being in the "marriage business" before gays were allowed to marry.
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.
You know, welfare and things like that. Or when a parent dies and our government helps the kid until he/she is 18.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.Dear Progressivepatriot. Did you understand a word Emily said?Dear Emily, Did you read the rules for this debate on genetics vs. choiceTruth 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.I'm sure you didn't complain about government being in the "marriage business" before gays were allowed to marry.
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.
Nah!! The churches will take care of that....that is if they have anything left over after building the million dollar mansion for the retiring Bishop, like they did in New Jersey.You know, welfare and things like that. Or when a parent dies and our government helps the kid until he/she is 18.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.Dear Progressivepatriot. Did you understand a word Emily said?Dear Emily, Did you read the rules for this debate on genetics vs. choiceTruth 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.
Do prisons prove homosexuality is a choice?
I have read about Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson's statement and was wondering what people think. Ben Carson: Prisons Prove Homosexuality Is A Choice
More concretely, Ben Carson's statement proves that Ben Carson doesn't really think things through before he speaks. There is quite a bit of proof of that.
As a doctor, he might have consulted a group like the American Academy of Pediatrics, which says this about the causes of Homosexuality:
Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. [...] Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.[3][145]
Or perhaps, if he believes it to be a psychological issue, the American Psychological Association:
Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual.[2]
