Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because it is you and your ilk who are denying it in your support of and promotion of DOMA, State Constitution amendments, etc. . . . or do you NOT support those prohibitions ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Whether or not our country allows it has no effect whatsoever on the morality of it, or if God considers it a valid marriage.
Whether or not our country allows it has a significant effect on the civil rights and privileges we enjoy. That is what you would deny. Morality is entirely God's concern . . . NOT yours. You really have to stop speaking for God, Vizio. There is no way on earth you know what God considers ANYTHING. You have your ancient primitive savage beliefs codified in words "written in ink." But you seem unwilling to sincerely consult your heart where those same writings tell us that God has written the truth and given us a Comforter to guide us to it. By making the words "written in ink" superior to what God has "written in our hearts" . . . you have rendered God and the Comforter impotent.
In line with this "sidebar" within this thread...Vizio and I were discussing this in the past...this was a comment I made on the issue. Just my opinion, of course:
Considering the failure rate of "marriage", it almost seems that this would be a better way to go from a civil/legal standpoint. As it is now...it's just a windfall for divorce attorneys, and a "make-work" set-up for the government personnel.
Leave "marriage" as a religious/sacred/spiritual thing...that has no legal effect. Get the government out of it.
From a legal standpoint...just file civil unions...that spell out everything.
General estate/probate/survivorship laws and other "spousal rights" under law probably don't conform exactly to ones wishes anyway. Create a document that is filed that customizes it so there is no questions about what each wants in all possible situations.
No one wouldn't be eligible. Let anyone "union" with anyone else (of age) they want.
If people want a religious ceremony like a "wedding", they could have that...but without it having any secular legal standing.
NOTE: I'm talking about the U.S. here.
I remember, Gldn. This is all rather irrelevant since the advent of Justice of the Peace and other civil "marriages" has been with us for along time now. Pretending that marriage still has any mandatory relevance to religions is just silly. As long as the State makes no effort to coerce religious institutions to perform religious rituals . . . it will remain a non-issue. The only real issue is State recognition and granting of privileges and benefits. That can happen without any change in religious marriages.
I remember, Gldn. This is all rather irrelevant since the advent of Justice of the Peace and other civil "marriages" has been with us for along time now. Pretending that marriage still has any mandatory relevance to religions is just silly. As long as the State makes no effort to coerce religious institutions to perform religious rituals . . . it will remain a non-issue. The only real issue is State recognition and granting of privileges and benefits. That can happen without any change in religious marriages.
I would prefer the government not be involved in "marriage" at all...I believe that should be strictly a religious or spiritual thing between the people involved.
No proprietary tax status, no inheritance or estate regulations based upon it, no laws giving rights based upon it, etc. Nothing other than some type of registration system of the "union" documents that spell out the specific "terms" of each...and the governments judicial system to sort things out if needed. Everyone of age should be eligible to union with anyone else...even multiples.
Then, you could forget about the government passing stuff like DOMA...they wouldn't have any say about "marriage" since it would be strictly a religious affair.
I doubt it will ever happen..but who knows?
I would prefer the government not be involved in "marriage" at all...I believe that should be strictly a religious or spiritual thing between the people involved.
No proprietary tax status, no inheritance or estate regulations based upon it, no laws giving rights based upon it, etc.
For me, those little tax breaks and other perks are the only reason I would consider getting "married".
Abstract
This study examined sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) by 1,612 individuals who are current or former members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). Data were obtained through a comprehensive online survey from both quantitative items and open-ended written responses. A minimum of 73% ofmen and 43% of women in this sample attempted sexual orientation change, usually through multiple methods and across many years (on average).
Developmental factors associated with attempts at sexual orientation change included higher levels of early religious orthodoxy (for all) and less supportive families and communities (for men only). Among women, those who identified as lesbian and who reported higher Kinsey attraction scores were more likely to have sought change. Of the 9 different methods surveyed, private and religious change methods (compared with therapist-led or group-based efforts) were the most common, started earlier, exercised for longer periods, and reported to be the most damaging and least effective.
When sexual orientation change was identified as a goal, reported effectiveness was lower for almost all of the methods. While some beneficial SOCE outcomes (such as acceptance of same-sex attractions and reduction in depression and anxiety)were reported, the overall results support the conclusion that sexual orientation is highly resistant to explicit attempts at change and that SOCE are overwhelmingly reported to be either ineffective or damaging by participants.
I would prefer the government not be involved in "marriage" at all...I believe that should be strictly a religious or spiritual thing between the people involved.
How about the 'religious' people who have a problem with the government being involved in civil marriage, just stick to their church-based spiritual wedding ceremonies and don't get a civil marriage license? Why do they need or want a civil marriage license anyway if marriage to them is purely religious/spiritual?
How about the 'religious' people who have a problem with the government being involved in civil marriage, just stick to their church-based spiritual wedding ceremonies and don't get a civil marriage license? Why do they need or want a civil marriage license anyway if marriage to them is purely religious/spiritual?
While sexuality has some fluidity and some theories claim most humans are wired to be varying degrees of bisexual, orientation doesn't just flip sides. A 100% straight person will not just out of the blue become 100% gay and vice versa.
The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.
"This is the most robust measure so far of cerebral differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects," she says.
Previous studies have also shown differences in brain architecture and activity between gay and straight people, but most relied on people's responses to sexuality driven cues that could have been learned, such as rating the attractiveness of male or female faces.
To get round this, Savic and her colleague, Per Lindström, chose to measure brain parameters likely to have been fixed at birth.
"That was the whole point of the study, to show parameters that differ, but which couldn't be altered by learning or cognitive processes," says Savic.
"This study demonstrates that homosexuals of both sexes show strong cross-sex shifts in brain symmetry," says Qazi Rahman, a leading researcher on sexual orientation at Queen Mary college, University of London, UK.
"The connectivity differences reported in the amygdala are striking."
"Paradoxically, it's more informative to look at things that have no direct connection with sexual orientation, and that's where this study scores," says Simon LeVay, a prominent US author who in 1991 reported finding differences(pdf) in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus between straight and gay men.
OK? And does that mean it's any more moral for a person with homosexual temptations to engage in sexual sin outside of marriage than it is for a straight person?
Does the OP feel that his original sexual leanings were due to childhood influences that caused him to lean that way?
What I mean is, while most homosexuals are born wired that way, some people think that if a biologically straight male child was exposed to homosexuality, he might identify at first as homosexual.
Granted, I know nothing about the subject, so I wait to be enlightened.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
