A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[TemplarKormac]

It doesn't regard rights based upon sexual orientation.

It regards the application of any law passed into government. Therefore when you pass a law, its protections should apply to all citizens, otherwise it is unconstitutional. It isn't hard to understand.

I'm sure you know that and have conveniently overlooked it for who the hell knows why.

No. People are conveniently ignoring the phrase "equal protection of the laws." It uses the word "citizen" and does not delineate between anyone; gay, straight, male, female, adult, child, black or white. Meaning any law passed must treat all of those people equally. Case in point.

A recitation:

Amendment XVI, Section 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[Truth2Know]

Share the truth all you want.

But always remember our country is governed by the Constitution, not by a doctrine by a far right contentious Christian sect.

For instance, don't be a self loathing projector like the author of this: "But if you feel you must litter the thread with your own addled rationalizations, you're entitled to do so,"

Our country is governed by fallible people who sometimes misuse or ignore the Constitution.

The Universe is governed by God according to His perfect law.

Which is better to obey?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I patently disagree with gay marriage. But I also understand that there are people passing and voting in laws who don't consider the Constitutional ramifications.

One wonders what this thread would be like if this forum technology existed 1960... How some people would try to justify the practice of racial discrimination, with scripture, or how some people would try to radicalize those who wanted desegregation and say any court rulings meant to desegregate are nothing but party politics. The same could be said of opposition to interracial marriage, heck, none of us have a problem with that now, do we?

Now, I believe the parallels here are immutable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Share the truth all you want.

But always remember our country is governed by the Constitution, not by a doctrine by a far right contentious Christian sect.

For instance, don't be a self loathing projector like the author of this: "But if you feel you must litter the thread with your own addled rationalizations, you're entitled to do so,"

Our country is governed by fallible people who sometimes misuse or ignore the Constitution. The Universe is governed by God according to His perfect law. Which is better to obey?

In our secular lives, the Constitution. In our private lives, we follow God's guidance. I won't marry a guy. God has not told me that marriage equality should not be legal.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It doesn't regard rights based upon sexual orientation.

It regards the application of any law passed into government. Therefore when you pass a law, its protections should apply to all citizens, otherwise it is unconstitutional. It isn't hard to understand.

And the law is doing just that. The decisions which struck down marriage prohibitions for interracial marriage, did not provide that black men could marry white men. Just as it did not provide for white men to marry black men.

I'm sure you know that and have conveniently overlooked it for who the hell knows why.

No. People are conveniently ignoring the phrase "equal protection of the laws." [/quote]

NONSENSE... there is no RIGHT to claim that demonstrably abnormal reasoning is NORMAL. Because THAT is NOT TRUE. When you tell someone that delusion is sound reasoning, you injure those who BELIEVE IT. You have no right to injure innocent people.

A recitation:

Amendment XVI, Section 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Of those words ya cited there, which ones do you 'feel' conveys a right to deceive other people?

Which of those words precludes people from freely practicing their religion?

Which of those words provide a right for adults to pursue children for sexual gratification?

Which of those words provides for the right for a person to declare demonstrably abnormal reasoning, as normal reasoning?

Which of those words provide the right to demand that demonstrably abnormal sexual behavior to be normal?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Share the truth all you want.

But always remember our country is governed by the Constitution, not by a doctrine by a far right contentious Christian sect.

For instance, don't be a self loathing projector like the author of this: "But if you feel you must litter the thread with your own addled rationalizations, you're entitled to do so,"

Our country is governed by fallible people who sometimes misuse or ignore the Constitution.

The Universe is governed by God according to His perfect law.

Which is better to obey?

"1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves."

Romans 13:1-2.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The above is very clear that Keys' reasoning is becoming erratic and abnormal, as well as increasingly emotional.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

It doesn't regard rights based upon sexual orientation.

It regards the application of any law passed into government. Therefore when you pass a law, its protections should apply to all citizens, otherwise it is unconstitutional. It isn't hard to understand.

I'm sure you know that and have conveniently overlooked it for who the hell knows why.

No. People are conveniently ignoring the phrase "equal protection of the laws." It uses the word "citizen" and does not delineate between anyone; gay, straight, male, female, adult, child, black or white.

A recitation:

Amendment XVI, Section 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Has any state made a law that abridges the privilege of traditional marriage? No.

You have fallaciously claimed that the 14th amendment is somehow a statement that gay marriage is a right. It was never that way. Even trying to read into it, it's not that way.

Nobody is ignoring equal protection of the laws. You're ignoring the context within which it was stated. It is saying that a person cannot lose life, liberty, property without equal protection. Nobody is taking away gays' rights by saying that gay marriage is not the law of the land. They have as much right to life, liberty and property as I do. And I'm going to repeat this; sexuality as a means of gaining added rights was never the intent of the 14th amendment. Legally speaking, judges are supposed to account for that when utilizing any law. Were it not so, subversiveness would win out. And unfortunately, that is what is happening in America. You're just jumping ship because you don't want to be on the so-called wrong side of history. But don't think there's any honor in what you're doing; there isn't.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I patently disagree with gay marriage. But I also understand that there are people passing and voting in laws who don't consider the Constitutional ramifications.

One wonders what this thread would be like if this forum technology existed 1960... How some people would try to justify the practice of racial discrimination, with scripture, or how some people would try to radicalize those who wanted desegregation and say any court rulings meant to desegregate are nothing but party politics. The same could be said of opposition to interracial marriage, heck, none of us have a problem with that now, do we?

Now, I believe the parallels here are immutable.

Race is not a CHOICE.

ALL BEHAVIOR IS A CHOICE.

Some people would have contested interracial marriage, and that includes people of ALL RACES.

There is NO correlation or potential to compare interracial marriage and sexual deviancy. None.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Share the truth all you want.

But always remember our country is governed by the Constitution, not by a doctrine by a far right contentious Christian sect.

For instance, don't be a self loathing projector like the author of this: "But if you feel you must litter the thread with your own addled rationalizations, you're entitled to do so,"

Our country is governed by fallible people who sometimes misuse or ignore the Constitution.

The Universe is governed by God according to His perfect law.

Which is better to obey?

"1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves."

Romans 13:1-2.

So, the Deviants were wrong to challenge the laws which recognized their behavior as criminal?

Huh...

Now what can we make of THAT?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Share the truth all you want.

But always remember our country is governed by the Constitution, not by a doctrine by a far right contentious Christian sect.

For instance, don't be a self loathing projector like the author of this: "But if you feel you must litter the thread with your own addled rationalizations, you're entitled to do so,"

Our country is governed by fallible people who sometimes misuse or ignore the Constitution.

The Universe is governed by God according to His perfect law.

Which is better to obey?

"1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves."

Romans 13:1-2.

So, the Deviants were wrong to challenge the laws which recognized their behavior as criminal?

Huh...

Now what can we make of THAT?

Using the court system and having legislatures pass laws, clear procedures in our laws, are acts of "resisting authority"?

You are erratic and emotional.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And the law is doing just that.

Oh really? So how do bans on gay marriage apply equally to everyone? They are made to discriminate against a sole group of people, legally speaking that is unconstitutional. Whether I agree with the laws (I do) is irrelevant. Sorry.

NONSENSE... there is no RIGHT to claim that demonstrably abnormal reasoning is NORMAL.

If you want to be technical, the ability to reason is protected by the First Amendment. You cannot personally direct the course of an individual's reasoning, that is also not your right.

When you tell someone that delusion is sound reasoning, you injure those who BELIEVE IT. You have no right to injure innocent people.

All your argument is based on is that anyone who doesn't believe as you do are deluded. Such a base argument ensconced in such prolixity.

Of those words ya cited there, which ones do you 'feel' conveys a right to deceive other people?

Who said I was trying to deceive people? The 14th Amendment is clear, and I am most certain the founders had no intention of deceit either. I can find a Ouija board for you and you can simply ask them yourself, if you wish. The words "equal protection" are pretty concrete and straight forward.

Which of those words precludes people from freely practicing their religion?

None of them, that's the whole purpose, right?

Which of those words provide a right for adults to pursue children for sexual gratification?

Which of those words indicate to you that adults are allowed abuse children? None of them.

Which of those words provides for the right for a person to declare demonstrably abnormal reasoning, as normal reasoning?

Not the 14th Amendment at all, but the 1st Amendment.

Which of those words provide the right to demand that demonstrably abnormal sexual behavior to be normal?

Who said I was demanding it to be normal? If I can recall, you haven't answered any of my questions.

Am I trying to deceive anyone?

Am I asking that homosexuality be normalized?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, the Deviants were wrong to challenge the laws which recognized their behavior as criminal?

It also means that people who ignore the law, or selectively apply it (in your case) are not obeying the governing authorities. Well are you? When you discriminate against someone, are you obeying the law? Hmm? Everything is done according to God's will, which is beyond all comprehension.

 

[Vigilante]

Of interest to this conversation.......

California Attorney General may be forced to give bill allowing execution of gays a shot on the...

NY Daily News ^
California State Attorney Kamala Harris may be forced to let petitioners decide if gay people should be executed for having sexual relations. Because Matt McLaughlin, a licensed attorney in Huntington Beach, did everything right by state standards in proposing the “Sodomite Suppression Act,” Harris will likely follow state law and allow a ballot measure to be circulated. The policy would make the “monstrous evil” that is homosexuality a crime punishable by death with “bullets to the head” or whatever form of execution is most “convenient.” If the state fails to do its part in the mass killing of gay and...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And the law is doing just that.

Oh really? So how do bans on gay marriage apply equally to everyone?

What ban on gay marriage are ya speaking of?

Cite me a statute.

I think you're conflating the defense of the natural, sustainable standards of marriage as a ban on homosexuals playing house.

I like to think that I stay fairly current on this stuff... and I'm not aware of any state having established a ban.

Ya see, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Wo-man. The natural standard of marriage doesn't ban anyone from doing anything, it merely states what Marriage is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So, the Deviants were wrong to challenge the laws which recognized their behavior as criminal?

It also means that people who ignore the law, or selectively apply it (in your case) are not obeying the governing authorities. Well are you? When you discriminate against someone, are you obeying the law? Hmm? Everything is done according to God's will, which is beyond all comprehension.

NO No!

You quoted Romans which said that the law is the law and we're all subject to it or else.

Which in the same breath, ya rationalize that Homosexuals can change the law with implied impunity...

How in the hell is that equal protection for anyone?

Mod Edit: quotes can not be altered in a way which effects meaning, entire quote added.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now we have false criteria being alleged by Keys.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What ban on gay marriage are ya speaking of?

All of 26 which were struck down by the Supreme Court:

Alabama (Feb. 9, 2015), Alaska (Oct. 17, 2014), Arizona (Oct. 17, 2014), California (June 28, 2013), Colorado (Oct. 7, 2014), Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008), Florida (Jan. 6, 2015), Idaho (Oct. 13, 2014), Indiana (Oct. 6, 2014), Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009), Kansas (Nov. 12, 2014), Massachusetts (May 17, 2004), Montana (Nov. 19, 2014), Nevada (Oct. 9, 2014), New Jersey (Oct. 21, 2013), New Mexico (Dec. 19, 2013), North Carolina (Oct. 10, 2014), Oklahoma (Oct. 6, 2014), Oregon (May 19, 2014), Pennsylvania (May 20, 2014), South Carolina (Nov. 20, 2014), Utah (Oct. 6, 2014), Virginia (Oct. 6, 2014), West Virginia (Oct. 9, 2014), Wisconsin (Oct. 6, 2014), Wyoming (Oct. 21, 2014)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What ban on gay marriage are ya speaking of?

All of 26 which were struck down by the Supreme Court:

Alabama (Feb. 9, 2015), Alaska (Oct. 17, 2014), Arizona (Oct. 17, 2014), California (June 28, 2013), Colorado (Oct. 7, 2014), Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008), Florida (Jan. 6, 2015), Idaho (Oct. 13, 2014), Indiana (Oct. 6, 2014), Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009), Kansas (Nov. 12, 2014), Massachusetts (May 17, 2004), Montana (Nov. 19, 2014), Nevada (Oct. 9, 2014), New Jersey (Oct. 21, 2013), New Mexico (Dec. 19, 2013), North Carolina (Oct. 10, 2014), Oklahoma (Oct. 6, 2014), Oregon (May 19, 2014), Pennsylvania (May 20, 2014), South Carolina (Nov. 20, 2014), Utah (Oct. 6, 2014), Virginia (Oct. 6, 2014), West Virginia (Oct. 9, 2014), Wisconsin (Oct. 6, 2014), Wyoming (Oct. 21, 2014)

Nope... Not a single one of those states banned homosexuals from anything.

In those states, the majority of the people, merely elected, the majority of the legislators; a majority of which offered and debated bills which DEFENDED THE LONGSTANDING, CENTURIES OF PRECEDENT WHICH RECOGNIZED THE NATURAL STANDARD OF MARRIAGE... Defining such as the Joining of One Man and One Wo-Man, which were signed into law by the Governors who were also elected by a majority of the people.

In ANY of those states, ANY homosexual was and remains free to walk into any courthouse and apply to marry with no fear of rejection where they apply with ANOTHER Homosexual of the distinct gender.

What THAT MEANS is that THERE IS NO BAN upon Homosexuals... to marry... PERIOD!

It also means that Marriage: Is the Joining of One Man and One Wo-Man.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You quoted Romans which said that the law is the law and we're all subject to it or else

Nope. You want to selectively quote me. The law is the law, and any law that is made or made in place of another is still the law. If the law demands that people be treated equally we do it, right? Or are you saying, "don't treat people equally or else! The law be damned!"

Which in the same breath, ya rationalize that Homosexuals can change the law with implied impunity...

Can you? You use the same implied impunity you suggest they do. It isn't rationality, it realization.

How in the hell is that equal protection for anyone?

Thing is, the law is made out of my, or your control. It just so happens that is demands people be treated equally, the concept has existed for more that 150 years now. How is it equal treatment to ban one behavior but not another?