government-free marriage

[AxisMundi]

I don't have any idea what you're talking about. My position on this is the same position that Ron Paul has. I'm opposed to sodomy laws and would vote against them as a member of a state legislature. However, I believe that the states should have the RIGHT to create laws regarding sex and other social issues. I don't believe that the United States Supreme Court should've overturned the sodomy law that Texas had on the books. I don't believe that the federal government should interfere with states' rights.

And no, I don't believe that homosexuality is a choice. I believe that it is most likely a trait that people develop over time as a result of the environment that they grew up in.

Firstly, as the portion you cherry picked from the APA statement also shows, scientists agree that sexual orientations all share the SAME origins, and all are unchangeable aspects. Therefor, homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, and shares the same origins as heterosexuality. being as they share the SAME traits and foundations, there is still no valid, secular reason to discriminate against gays.

Secondly, it appears you do not to agree with the Appeals Process, part of the First Amendment and petitioning the g'ment for redress of grievances. Clarify.

Lastly, Civil Rights are not a State matter, and should never be left up to the State. Otherwise, you would agree with a State banning, say, gun ownership.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Lastly, Civil Rights are not a State matter, and should never be left up to the State. Otherwise, you would agree with a State banning, say, gun ownership.

But if rights are not "natural" and "inalienable" then what's the problem?

You just spent the last page of posts saying it was up to the people to "decide" what rights government will "grant".

 

[AxisMundi]

You want me to copy and past the entire article which would take up about 20 pages? What I copied and pasted flat out states that there is no scientific consensus that homosexuality is a genetic trait. There isn't any kind of context that changes the quote that I copied and pasted.

Heterosexuality is not a "genetic trait" either. That is my point.

Shall we then be able to discriminate against heterosexuals?

Here is a good quote you could ahve used, among many...

According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation-–be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or
heterosexual.

Note that they are referring to all three major classifications of sexual orientation.

 

[AxisMundi]

But if rights are not "natural" and "inalienable" then what's the problem?

You just spent the last page of posts saying it was up to the people to "decide" what rights government will "grant".

Yes? And?

We decide said rights within our Constitutional Framework.

 

[AxisMundi]

Heterosexuality is not a "genetic trait" either. That is my point.

Shall we then be able to discriminate against heterosexuals?

Here is a good quote you could ahve used, among many...

According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation-–be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or
heterosexual.

Note that they are referring to all three major classifications of sexual orientation.

Another good quote as a counterpoint to your post...

No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental
health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yes? And?

We decide said rights within our Constitutional Framework.

Right, so then the people ban whatever they want.

Could limit what you say or force you to attend church or what have you. Correct?

But you said it should never be left up to the state.

The state is just the people.

So which is it?

Rights are natural and immutable, or subject to the whims of public plebiscites?

 

[Brett85]

Firstly, as the portion you cherry picked from the APA statement also shows, scientists agree that sexual orientations all share the SAME origins, and all are unchangeable aspects. Therefor, homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, and shares the same origins as heterosexuality. being as they share the SAME traits and foundations, there is still no valid, secular reason to discriminate against gays.

Secondly, it appears you do not to agree with the Appeals Process, part of the First Amendment and petitioning the g'ment for redress of grievances. Clarify.

Lastly, Civil Rights are not a State matter, and should never be left up to the State. Otherwise, you would agree with a State banning, say, gun ownership.

A state can't ban gun ownership because it's a right granted to the people by the 2nd amendment. A state or city government can't violate any part of the Bill of Rights. But there's no part of the Bill of Rights that contains a right to sodomy or gay marriage. The states should have the right to decide controversial social issues that the Constitution is silent on. Also, "civil rights" are something that are granted by the government. I think most of us here believe in the idea of natural rights. It certainly seems like you have very strong disagreements with Ron Paul on these cultural issues. Do you just agree with Ron Paul on so many other issues that you simply overlook his stance on these cultural, Constitutional issues

 

[AxisMundi]

Also from the APA, please note the bolded portion...

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

It's important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.

Is sexual orientation a choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Can therapy change sexual orientation?

No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.

 

[AxisMundi]

A state can't ban gun ownership because it's a right granted to the people by the 2nd amendment. A state or city government can't violate any part of the Bill of Rights. But there's no part of the Bill of Rights that contains a right to sodomy or gay marriage. The states should have the right to decide controversial social issues that the Constitution is silent on. Also, "civil rights" are something that are granted by the government. I think most of us here believe in the idea of natural rights. It certainly seems like you have very strong disagreements with Ron Paul on these cultural issues. Do you just agree with Ron Paul on so many other issues that you simply overlook his stance on these cultural, Constitutional issues

1. Yes, there is a right to privacy. The entire 4th Amendment is devoted to the subject.

2. The 1st Amendment bans the use of religion as a sole basis for US laws. As the driving force behind this discrimination is, indeed, religious doctrine, said legislation discriminating against gays is not only immoral, but illegal as well. Also, gun rights are very controversial social issues, becoming a wedge issue in many cases. So, what constitutes a valid "socially controversial" issue that States should have a right to decide upon?

3. Do YOU agree with Dr. Paul one hundred percent? I seriously doubt it. No two individuals will share exactly the same ideology.

 

[AxisMundi]

Right, so then the people ban whatever they want.

Could limit what you say or force you to attend church or what have you. Correct?

But you said it should never be left up to the state.

The state is just the people.

So which is it?

Rights are natural and immutable, or subject to the whims of public plebiscites?

Do I really need to quote the Constitution where your Free Speech and Religious Freedom examples are concerned?

Where concerns addressed by the US Constitution are concerned, those subjects cannot be left up to the States.

Civil Rights, based on Constitutional Principles, should also never be left up to the individual States as they apply to the entire Nation.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

And unlike you, most Americans do not support unjustified discrimination based on race, religion, etc. Sorry.

Sure they do.... most people discriminate everytime they fuck someone or breed.

I see you for all your posts you have learned nothing about remedy:

Vows taken in front of witnesses that no one can prove accept to those that were there. Again, a hospital could refuse a man to see his wife.

If you could comprehend the fact that every legal system in human history is based on claims utilizing human observation, a police report = a notorized affidavit, and laws simply define the types of claims in which remedies may be obtained using force. Of course a hospital can refuse just like any entity can refuse. That does not mean a remedy is impossible, but it would appear impossible for you.

 

[Brett85]

There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

That's just a general statement without a link to a scientific study to back it up. Take a look at the link below. Do you think that all of these people simply make their stories up?

http://www.exodusinternational.org/content/blogcategory/20/149/

 

[Brett85]

1. Yes, there is a right to privacy. The entire 4th Amendment is devoted to the subject.

2. The 1st Amendment bans the use of religion as a sole basis for US laws. As the driving force behind this discrimination is, indeed, religious doctrine, said legislation discriminating against gays is not only immoral, but illegal as well. Also, gun rights are very controversial social issues, becoming a wedge issue in many cases. So, what constitutes a valid "socially controversial" issue that States should have a right to decide upon?

3. Do YOU agree with Dr. Paul one hundred percent? I seriously doubt it. No two individuals will share exactly the same ideology.

1. The 4th amendment contains a specific right to privacy. It prevents the government from coming into your house without first obtaining a warrant. This is why I believe that certain parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional. However, there is no general right to privacy in the Constitution. The 4th amendment certainly doesn't apply to abortions performed in public clinics, and it doesn't apply to government benefits for married couples.

2. We disagree on the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Like Ron Paul, I believe that the establishment clause simply prevents Congress from creating a government run church that everybody would be forced to attend. The controversial social issues that the people should have the right to vote on would certainly include the two major social issues, abortion and gay marriage.

3. No, I disagree with Ron Paul on some issues as well. I guess I was just trying to point out that you can have a culturally conservative worldview and still support the principles of liberty.

 

[AxisMundi]

That's just a general statement without a link to a scientific study to back it up. Take a look at the link below. Do you think that all of these people simply make their stories up?

http://www.exodusinternational.org/content/blogcategory/20/149/

Are you kidding?

I post from a scientific source free from bias.

What you offer is a source who are self admittedly biased, and bigoted as well, and who cannot be father from simple science (or reality).

Ex-gay ministries are proven to be harmful. Not only as shown by the APA but from statements made by people forced to live that lie. Indeed, John Evan, founder of the first contemporary ex-gay ministry in the United States, Love in Action, now counsels the victims of the ex-gay ministries.

My own biased source, but one which works within the realms of science and not religious fantasy.

http://www.truthwinsout.org/learn-about-ex-gay-ministries/

BTW, you can dig through the APA statements and research to find links to the studies if you want to.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Is sexual orientation a choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Are you going to demonstrate some intellectual consistency and demonstrate murder is also not a choice because it is an animal instinct? Can I count on your future support for killers because it is perfectly natural to kill?

Or will you be a hypocrite?

 

[AxisMundi]

1. The 4th amendment contains a specific right to privacy. It prevents the government from coming into your house without first obtaining a warrant. This is why I believe that certain parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional. However, there is no general right to privacy in the Constitution. The 4th amendment certainly doesn't apply to abortions performed in public clinics, and it doesn't apply to government benefits for married couples.

2. We disagree on the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Like Ron Paul, I believe that the establishment clause simply prevents Congress from creating a government run church that everybody would be forced to attend. The controversial social issues that the people should have the right to vote on would certainly include the two major social issues, abortion and gay marriage.

3. No, I disagree with Ron Paul on some issues as well. I guess I was just trying to point out that you can have a culturally conservative worldview and still support the principles of liberty.

1. Let's try to stay on topic, shall we? The elimination of anti-sodomy laws are indeed covered under the 4th Amendment Right to Privacy. It is also a basis, along with property rights, banning your neighbor from entering your home and rifling through your papers.

2a. Shall I repost the quote from Bouvier's law Dictionary?

2b. We the People may not vote on issues covered under the Constitution and it's Principles. SCOTUS determined that the commerce laws outlawing abortions were unconstitutional. Outlawing abortion in the first trimester cannot happen.

3. Define liberty, as you see it and how it pertains to this debate.

 

[AxisMundi]

Are you going to demonstrate some intellectual consistency and demonstrate murder is also not a choice because it is an animal instinct? Can I count on your future support for killers because it is perfectly natural to kill?

Or will you be a hypocrite?

How about a rational discussion instead of throwing argument fallacies?

 

[AxisMundi]

Sure they do.... most people discriminate everytime they fuck someone or breed.

I see you for all your posts you have learned nothing about remedy:



If you could comprehend the fact that every legal system in human history is based on claims utilizing human observation, a police report = a notorized affidavit, and laws simply define the types of claims in which remedies may be obtained using force. Of course a hospital can refuse just like any entity can refuse. That does not mean a remedy is impossible, but it would appear impossible for you.

1. Argument fallacy.

2. Legal systems depend on PROOF, not witnesses.

Habeus Corpus.

 

[Brett85]

Are you kidding?

I post from a scientific source free from bias.

What you offer is a source who are self admittedly biased, and bigoted as well, and who cannot be father from simple science (or reality).

Ex-gay ministries are proven to be harmful. Not only as shown by the APA but from statements made by people forced to live that lie. Indeed, John Evan, founder of the first contemporary ex-gay ministry in the United States, Love in Action, now counsels the victims of the ex-gay ministries.

My own biased source, but one which works within the realms of science and not religious fantasy.

http://www.truthwinsout.org/learn-about-ex-gay-ministries/

BTW, you can dig through the APA statements and research to find links to the studies if you want to.

Well I wouldn't exactly say that the sites that you linked to are "neutral," and they didn't link to a scientific study that showed that homosexuality is a genetic trait. My point is simply that it's stupid to compare homosexuality to race. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Race is specifically a genetic trait that people can't control. Homosexuality is a much more complex issue that there is really no consensus on within the scientific community. And also, you're saying that these ex gay people are "bigoted" against how they once were?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

2. Legal systems depend on PROOF, not witnesses.

roflol, please explain what proof is. Be sure to eliminate witnesses from your explanation, which would mean anything discerned with human observation, or I will be spoon feeding you some more rational hypocrisy pie.

How about a rational discussion instead of throwing argument fallacies?

I should have went with my animal instincts and offered the forum odds on intellectual consistency taking a hypocrisy bet.